PDF Multiagent Systems Introduction and Coordination Control 1St Edition Magdi S Mahmoud Ebook Full Chapter

Multiagent Systems: Introduction and
Coordination Control 1st Edition Magdi

S. Mahmoud
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/multiagent-systems-introduction-and-coordination-con
trol-1st-edition-magdi-s-mahmoud/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Management Control with Integrated Planning Models and

Implementation for Sustainable Coordination Lukas
Rieder
https://textbookfull.com/product/management-control-with-
integrated-planning-models-and-implementation-for-sustainable-
coordination-lukas-rieder/
Coordination, Cooperation, and Control: The Evolution

of Economic and Political Power Randall G. Holcombe
https://textbookfull.com/product/coordination-cooperation-and-
control-the-evolution-of-economic-and-political-power-randall-g-
holcombe/
Power Systems Control and Reliability Electric Power

Design and Enhancement 1st Edition Isa S. Qamber
https://textbookfull.com/product/power-systems-control-and-
reliability-electric-power-design-and-enhancement-1st-edition-
isa-s-qamber/
Ultimate Rust for Systems Programming: Master Core

Programming for Architecting Secure and Reliable
Software Systems 1st Edition Mahmoud Harmouch
https://textbookfull.com/product/ultimate-rust-for-systems-
programming-master-core-programming-for-architecting-secure-and-
reliable-software-systems-1st-edition-mahmoud-harmouch/
The Coordination of European Public Hospital Systems:
Interests, Cultures and Resistance 1st Edition Sorin
Dan (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-coordination-of-european-
public-hospital-systems-interests-cultures-and-resistance-1st-
edition-sorin-dan-auth/
Natural fiber textile composite engineering 1st Edition

Magdi El Messiry
https://textbookfull.com/product/natural-fiber-textile-composite-
engineering-1st-edition-magdi-el-messiry/
Protective Armor Engineering Design 1st Edition Magdi

El Messiry (Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/protective-armor-engineering-
design-1st-edition-magdi-el-messiry-author/
Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS 2016

Workshops Best Papers Singapore Singapore May 9 10 2016
Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition Nardine Osman
https://textbookfull.com/product/autonomous-agents-and-
multiagent-systems-aamas-2016-workshops-best-papers-singapore-
singapore-may-9-10-2016-revised-selected-papers-1st-edition-
nardine-osman/
Introduction to Process Control Analysis Mathematical

Modeling Control and Optimization 1st Edition Victor A.
Skormin (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-process-control-
analysis-mathematical-modeling-control-and-optimization-1st-
edition-victor-a-skormin-auth/
Multiagent Systems
Introduction and
Coordination Control
Magdi S Mahmoud
Distinguished Professor, Systems Engineering Department
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
p,
p,
A SCIENCE PUBLISHERS BOOK
A SCIENCE PUBLISHERS BOOK
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20200116
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-367-25536-7 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the
validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the
copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to
publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let
us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted,
or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, includ
ing photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written
permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com
(http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety
of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment
has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
This book is dedicated to my family. With tolerance,
patience and wonderful frame of mind, they have
encouraged and supported me for many years.
Preface
Multiagent system (MAS) is perhaps one of the most exciting and fastest growing
domains in the intelligent resource management and agent oriented technology which
deals with modeling of autonomous decision making entities. The field of multiagent
dynamic systems is an inter-disciplinary research field that has become very popular
in recent years, in parallel with the significant interest in the practical applications of
such systems in various areas, including robotics.
Recent developments have produced very encouraging results in its novel
approach to handle multi-player interactive systems. In particular, the multiagent
system approach is adapted to model, control, manage or test the operations and
management of several system applications, including multi-vehicles, microgrids
and multi-robots, where agents represent individual entities in the network. Each
participant is modeled as an autonomous participant with independent strategies
and responses to outcomes. They are able to operate autonomously and interact
proactively with their environment.
In recent publication, the problem of information consensus is addressed, where
a team of vehicles must communicate with each other in order to agree on key pieces of
information that enable them to work together in a coordinated fashion. The problem
is particularly challenging because communication channels have limited range and
experience fading and dropout. Along a parallel avenue, various topics regarding
synchronization and consensus in multiagent systems were examined. The results
demonstrated that the joint presentation of synchronization and consensus allows the
reader to learn about the similarities and differences of both concepts. Cooperative
control of multiagent dynamical systems interconnected by a communication
network topology was also studied. Using the terminology of cooperative control,
each system is endowed with its own state variable and dynamics. A fundamental
problem in multiagent dynamical systems on networks is the design of distributed
protocols that guarantee consensus or synchronization, in the sense that the states of
all the systems reach the same value.
Preface • v
In view of the available results, it turns out that research avenues in multiagent
systems offer great opportunities for further developments from theoretical, simulation
and implementations standpoints. This volume provides ‘‘system dynamics and
control perspective” of multiagent systems, with focus on mathematical modeling
of multiagent systems and paying particular attention to the agent dynamics models
available in the literature. We provide a number of problems on coordination and
control of multiagent systems which have gained significant attention recently as
well as various approaches to these problems. Looked at in this light, it has the
following objectives:
1. It gathers together the theoretical preliminaries and fundamental issues related
to multiagent systems.
2. It provides coherent results on adopting multiagent framework for critically
examining problems in smart microgrid systems.
3. It presents advanced analysis of multiagent systems under cyber-physical attacks
and develops resilient control strategies in order to guarantee safe operation.
October 2019 Magdi S Mahmoud
Acknowledgement
In writing this volume, I took the approach of referring within the text to papers
and/or books which I believe taught me some concepts, ideas and methods. I further
complemented this by adding some remarks and notes within and at the end of each
chapter to shed some light on other related results.
A particular manifestation of our life is due the ‘‘interaction” with people
in general and colleagues and friends. This is true in my technical career, where
I benefited from listening, discussing and collaborating with several colleagues.
Foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof Yuanqing Xia, BIT,
China, who has been a good supporter, but most importantly an example of a true
friend. I owe him for his deep insight as well as for his trust and perseverance.
The process of fine tuning and producing the final draft was pursued at the
Distributed Control Research Group (DCRG), Systems Engineering Department and
special thanks must go to my colleague Dr Nezar M Alyazidi and graduate students
Mojeed O Oyedeji and Bilal J Karaki for helpful comments, superb interactions
and assistance throughout the writing of this book. The great effort by Dr Mutaz M
Hamadan was instrumental in producing the last version of the book. Portions of this
volume were developed and upgraded while offering the graduate courses SCE-612
171, SCE-612-172, SCE-701-172, SCE-701-181, SCE-515-182 at KFUPM, Saudi
Arabia.
It is a great pleasure to acknowledge the financial funding afforded by the
deanship of scientific research (DSR) through project no. BW 181006 and for
providing a superb competitive environment and overall support of research activities
at KFUPM.
I would appreciate any comments, questions, criticisms or corrections that
readers may kindly provide to me at my emails:
msmahmoud@kfupm.edu.sa or magdisadekmahmoud@gmail.com.
Contents
Preface iv
Acknowledgement vi
Author Biography xiii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Elements of Graph Theory 2
1.2.1 Basic results 3
1.2.2 Laplacian spectrum of graphs 3
1.2.3 Properties of adjacency matrix 4
1.2.4 Nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems 7
1.2.5 Complex dynamical systems 12
1.2.6 Delay effects 15
1.2.7 Sampled-data framework 16
1.3 Multiagent System Approach 17
1.3.1 Practical examples 17
1.3.2 Some relevant definitions 18
1.4 Mathematical Models for Agent Dynamics 20
1.4.1 Single integrator model 21
1.4.2 Double integrator model 21
1.4.3 Uncertain fully actuated model 22
1.4.4 Non-holonomic unicycle model 23
1.5 Coordination and Control Problems 23
1.5.1 Aggregation and social foraging 24
1.5.2 Flocking and rendezvous 25
1.5.3 Synchronization of coupled nonlinear oscillators 25
1.6 Scope and Book Layout 27
viii • Multiagent Systems: Introduction and Coordination Control
2. Theoretical Background 29
2.1 Preliminaries of Distributed Systems 29
2.1.1 Problem description 30
2.1.2 Control design scheme 32
2.1.3 Without communication delays 33
2.1.4 With communication delays 37
2.2 Networked Multiagent Systems 38
2.2.1 Consensus in networks 40
2.2.2 The f-consensus problem 41
2.2.3 Iterative consensus and Markov chains 42
2.3 Applications 42
2.3.1 Synchronization of coupled oscillators 42
2.3.2 Flocking theory 43
2.3.3 Fast consensus in small-worlds 43
2.3.4 Rendezvous in space 44
2.3.5 Distributed sensor fusion in sensor networks 44
2.3.6 Distributed formation control 44
2.4 Information Consensus 45
2.4.1 Algebraic connectivity and spectral properties 47
2.4.2 Convergence analysis for directed networks 47
2.4.3 Consensus in discrete-time 50
2.4.4 Performance of consensus algorithms 52
2.4.5 Alternative forms of consensus algorithms 54
2.4.6 Weighted-average consensus 57
2.4.7 Consensus under communication time-delays 58
2.5 Consensus in Switching Networks 59
2.6 Cooperation in Networked Control Systems 61
2.6.1 Collective dynamics of multivehicle formation 62
2.6.2 Stability of relative dynamics 63
2.7 Simulation Studies 64
2.7.1 Consensus in complex networks 64
2.7.2 Multivehicle formation control 66
2.8 Notes 67
3. Distributed Intelligence in Power Systems 69

3.1 Introduction to MAS Technology 69
3.1.1 Autonomous microgrid system 71
3.1.2 A state-space model 71
3.1.3 Heuristic dynamic programming 73
3.1.4 Discrete-time Bellman equation 74
3.1.5 Value iteration algorithm 75
3.1.6 Adaptive critics implementation 76
3.1.7 Actor-critic implementation 77
Contents • ix
3.1.8 Simulations results 78

3.1.9 Actor-critic tuning results 78
3.1.10 Robustness of the proposed controller 80
3.2 Operation in Islanded Mode 81
3.2.1 Autonomous microgrid 85
3.2.2 Primary control 86
3.2.3 Fixed gain distributed secondary control 89
3.2.4 Neural network distributed secondary control 91
3.2.5 Stage 1: Selection of training data 91
3.2.6 Stage 2: Selection of artificial neural network 94
3.2.7 Stage 3: Neural network training 95
3.2.8 Simulation results I 96
3.3 Multiagent Coordination for Distributed Energy Resources 103
3.3.1 Introduction 103
3.3.2 Advantages of MAS approach 104
3.3.3 Agent platform 105
3.3.4 Software system analysis 106
3.3.5 Distributed control system 107
3.3.6 Simulation studies I 108
3.3.7 Coordination between agents 110
3.3.8 Checking reliability 112
3.3.9 Simulation results II 113
3.4 Notes 113
4. Consensus for Heterogeneous Systems with Delays 117

4.1 Introduction 117
4.2 Multiagent Leader-Follower Consensus Problem 118
4.3 Distributed Adaptive Control Design 120
4.4 Illustrative Example 129
4.5 Tracking and Coordination Using Sensor Networks 130
4.6 Target Tracking in Sensor Networks 135
4.7 Control System Architecture 136
4.7.1 Sensor network and models 138
4.7.2 Multitarget tracking 140
4.7.3 Agent dynamics and coordination objective 143
4.8 Control System Implementation 145
4.8.1 Multisensor fusion module 145
4.8.2 Multitarget tracking and multitrack fusion modules 150
4.8.3 Multiagent coordination module 155
4.9 Experimental Results 161
4.9.1 Platform 163
4.9.2 Live demonstration 165
4.10 Notes 168
x • Multiagent Systems: Introduction and Coordination Control
5. Secure Control of Distributed Multiagent Systems 169

5.1 Introduction 169
5.2 Problem Formulation 171
5.3 Main Results 172
5.4 Illustrative Examples 177
5.5 Notes 180
6. Advanced Consensus Algorithms 183

6.1 Event-Triggered Control for Multiagent Systems 183
6.1.2 System model and problem statement 185
6.1.3 Design tracking results 188
6.1.4 Numerical example 195
6.2 Pinning Coordination Control of Networked Systems 198
6.2.1 Networked multi-vehicle systems 201
6.2.2 Fixed communication topology 206
6.2.3 Case of general graphs 207
6.2.4 Example 6.1 209
6.2.5 Strongly connected and balanced graphs 211
6.2.6 Selection of the pinned nodes 214
6.2.7 Pinning control with variable topology 218
6.2.8 Simulation examples 219
6.3 Distributed Consensus Control 221
6.3.1 Consensus with observer-type protocol 224
6.3.2 Dynamic consensus 225
6.3.3 Consensus region 227
6.3.4 Consensus with neutrally stable matrix 228
6.3.5 Consensus with prescribed convergence speed 230
6.3.6 Illustrative example 6.2 232
6.3.7 Consensus with static protocols 233
6.3.8 Formation control 235
6.4 Consensus Control for Time-Delay Systems 238
6.4.1 Problem formulation 238
6.4.2 Fixed interconnection topology 241
6.4.3 Switched interconnection topology 245
6.5 Robust Consensus of Multiagent Systems 250
6.5.1 Problem description 251
6.5.2 Analytic results 253
6.6 Notes 270
Contents • xi
7. Cooperative Control of Networked Power Systems 273

7.1 Coordinated Model Predictive Power Flows 273
7.1.2 System architecture 275
7.1.3 Wind power generation 276
7.1.4 Photovoltaic module generators 277
7.1.5 Energy storage system dynamics 277
7.1.6 Loads 278
7.1.7 Energy management unit 278
7.1.8 Power price mechanism 278
7.2 Power Scheduling in Networked MG 279
7.2.1 Networked topology 279
7.2.2 GCC of networked MG 279
7.2.3 MPC-based power scheduling 279
7.2.4 Optimization problem formulation 280
7.2.5 State equations and constraints 281
7.2.6 Case studies 282
7.2.7 Simulation setup 283
7.2.8 Case study 1 283
7.2.9 Case study 2 290
7.2.10 Case study 3 292
7.3 Distributed Robust Control in Smart Microgrids 293
7.3.1 A microgrid model 293
7.3.2 Microgrid group model 293
7.3.3 Problem formulation 295
7.3.4 Robust group control 296
7.3.5 Distributed information models 298
7.3.6 Simulation study 299
7.3.7 Solution procedure A 300
7.3.8 Solution procedure B 301
7.3.9 Solution procedure C 301
7.3.10 Solution procedure D 301
7.4 Notes 302
8. Dynamic Graphical Games 305

8.1 Constrained Graphical Games 305
8.1.1 Reinforcement learning 306
8.1.2 Synchronization control problem 307
8.1.3 Performance evaluation of the game 308
8.1.4 Optimality conditions 309
8.1.5 Bellman equations 310
8.1.6 The Hamiltonian function 311
8.1.7 Coupled IRL-Hamilton-Jacobi theory 313
8.1.8 Coupled IRL-HJB equations 315
xii • Multiagent Systems: Introduction and Coordination Control
8.1.9 Nash equilibrium solution 317

8.1.10 Stability analysis 318
8.2 Value Iteration Solution and Implementation 320
8.2.1 Value iteration algorithm 321
8.2.2 Graph solution implementation 321
8.2.3 Online actor-critic neural networks tuning 323
8.2.4 Simulation results I 323
8.2.5 Simulation case 1 324
8.3 Multiagent Reinforcement Learning for Microgrids 331
8.3.1 Microgrid control requirements 332
8.3.2 Features of MAS technology 333
8.3.3 A multiagent reinforcement learning method 335
8.3.4 Critical operation in island mode 338
8.3.5 Simulation results II 340
8.4 Notes 344
References 345
Index 395
Author Biography
Magdi S Mahmoud has been a Professor of Engineering since 1984. He is now

a Distinguished Professor at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
(KFUPM), Saudi Arabia. He was on the faculty at different universities worldwide,
including Egypt (CU, AUC), Kuwait (KU), UAE (UAEU), UK (UMIST), USA
(Pitt, Case Western), Singapore (Nanyang) and Australia (Adelaide). He lectured
in Venezuela (Caracas), Germany (Hanover), UK ((Kent), USA (UoSA), Canada
(Montreal) and China (BIT, Yanshan). He is the principal author of fiftyone (51)
books, inclusive book-chapters and the author/co-author of more than 610 peer-
reviewed papers. He is a fellow of the IEE, a senior member of the IEEE, the CEI
(UK), and a registered consultant engineer of information engineering and systems
(Egypt). He received the Science State Incentive Prize for outstanding research in
engineering (1978, 1986), the State Medal for Science and Arts, First Class (1978),
and the State Distinction Award (1986), Egypt. He awarded the Abdulhameed
Showman Prize for Young Arab Scientists in Engineering Sciences (1986), Jordan.
In 1992, he received the Distinguished Engineering Research Award, Kuwait
University (1992), Kuwait. He is co-winner of the Most Cited Paper Award 2009,
“Signal Processing”, vol. 86, no. 1, 2006, pp. 140–152. His papers were selected
among the 40 best papers in Electrical & Electronic Engineering by the Web of
Science ISI in July 2012. He interviewed for “People in Control”, IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, August 2010. He served as Guest Editor for the special issue
“Neural Networks and Intelligence Systems in Neurocomputing” and Guest Editor
for the “2015 International Symposium onWeb of Things and Big Data (WoTBD
2015)” 18–20 October 2015, Manama, Bahrain. He is a Regional Editor (Middle
East and Africa) of International Journal of Systems, Control and Communications
(JSCC), INDERSCIENCE Publishers since 2007, member of the Editorial Board
of the Journal of Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization (NACO), Australia
since 2010, an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Systems Dynamics
Applications (IJSDA), since 2011, member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of
xiv • Multiagent Systems: Introduction and Coordination Control
Engineering Management, USA since 2012 and an Academic Member of Athens

Institute for Education and Research, Greece since 2015. Since 2016, He is an
Editor of the Journal Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi Publishing
Company, USA. He is currently actively engaged in teaching and research in the
development of modern methodologies to distributed control and filtering, networked
control systems, fault-tolerant systems, cyber-physical systems and information
technology.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Overview
The field of coordinated multiagent dynamic systems, including swarms and
swarm robotics, is a relatively new field that has become popular in recent years.
Since the pioneering work [1] on simulation of a flock of birds in flight using
a behavioral model based on a few simple rules and only local interactions, the
field has witnessed many developments. Currently, there is significant interest in
the applications of the field in various areas involving teams of manned or un
manned aerial, ground, space or underwater vehicles, robots and mobile sensors,
to name a few [2]–[9].
Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, the literature on coordi
nated multiagent dynamic systems have a moderately wide spectrum of perspec
tives. This chapter focuses on the system dynamics and control perspective with
the aim of presenting a short review on mathematical modeling, coordination and
control of multiagent dynamical systems.
Integrator and double integrator models are the simplest abstraction, upon
which a large part of results on consensus of multiagent systems have been
based, see [34], [35], [36], [41], [42], [43]. To deal with more complex mod
els, a number of recent papers are devoted to consensus of multiple LTI systems
[37], [38], [39], [40], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. These results
keep most of the concepts provided by earlier developments, and provide new
design and analysis techniques, such as LQR approach, low gain approach, H∞
approach, parametrization and geometric approach, output regulation approach,
and homotopy-based approach. However, most of these results [37], [38], [39],
[40], [44], [46], [50], [51] mainly focus on fixed interaction topology, rather
than time-varying topology. How do the switches of the interaction topology and
2 � Multiagent Systems: Introduction and Coordination Control
agent dynamics jointly affect the collective behavior of the multiagent system?
Attempts to understand this issue have been hampered by the lack of suitable
analysis tools. The results of Scardovi et al. [45] and Ni et al. [40] are men
tioned here, because of their contributions to dealing with switching topology
in the setup of high-order agent model. However, when dealing with switching
topology, [45] and [40] assumed that the system of each agent is neutrally sta
ble; thus, it has no positive real parts eigenvalues. This assumption was widely
assumed in the literature when the interaction topology is fixed or switching.
Unfortunately, when the agent is stabilizable and detectable rather than neutrally
stable, and when the interaction topology is switching, there is no result reported
in the literature to investigate the consensus of these agents.
1.2 Elements of Graph Theory

In this section, some preliminary knowledge of graph theory [10] is introduced
so as to facilitate the subsequent analysis. For a system of n connected agents, its
network topology can be modeled as a directed graph.
A)) Let G = (V, E, A) be a weighted directed graph of order n, where
V = 1, ..., n is the set of nodes; E ⊆ V × V is the set of edges and A = [ai j ] ∈ Rn×n
is the non-negative adjacency matrix. An edge of G is denoted by a pair of dis
tinct nodes (i, j) ∈ E, where node i and node j are called the child node and the
parent node, respectively. A path in a directed graph is a sequence i0 , i1 , ..., i f if it
consists of different nodes such that (i j−1 , i j ) is an edge for j = 1, 2, ..., f , f ∈ Z+ .
Denote Ni = j | (i, j) ∈ E) as the set of neighbors of node i. The adjacency ma
trix A = [ai j ] ∈ Rn×n is defined such that ai j is the non-negative weight of edge
(i, j).
B)) We assume ai j = 0 if (i, j) ∈
/ E and aii�= 0 for all i ∈ 1, ..., n. The Laplacian
n
matrix L = [li j ] ∈ Rn×n is defined as lii = j=1, j= � i ai j and li j = −ai j (i �= j). A
directed tree is a directed graph, in which there is exactly one parent for every
node, except for a node called the root. A directed spanning tree is a directed
tree, which consists of all of the nodes in G. A directed graph contains a directed
spanning tree if there exists a directed spanning tree as a subgraph of the graph.
Let G = (V, E, A) be a directed graph of order n, where V = {s1 , . . . , sn } is the
set of nodes, E ⊆ V × V is the set of edges, and A = [ai j ] ∈ �n×n is a weighted
adjacency matrix. The node indexes belong to a finite index set I = {1, 2, . . . , n}.
An edge of G is denoted by ei j = (si , s j ), where the first element si of the ei j is said
to be the tail of the edge and the other s j to be the head. The adjacency elements
associated with the edges are positive, that is, ei j ∈ E ⇔ ai j > 0. If a directed
graph has the property that ai j = a ji for any i, j ∈ I, the directed graph is called
undirected. The Laplacian with the directed graph is defined �n as L = Δ − A ∈
�n×n , where Δ = [Δi j ] is a diagonal matrix with Δii = j=1 ai j . An important
fact of L is that all the row sums of L are zero and, thus, 1 is an eigenvector of
Introduction � 3
L associated with the zero eigenvalue. The set of neighbors of node si is denoted
by Ni = {s j ∈ V : (si , s j ) ∈ E}. A directed path is a sequence of ordered edges
of the form (si1 , si2 ), (si2 , si3 ), . . . , where si j ∈ V in a directed graph. A directed
graph is said to be strongly connected, if there is a directed path from every node
to every other node. Moreover, a directed graph is said to have spanning trees, if
there exists a node such that there is a directed path from every other node to this
node.
Let Re(z),Im(z) and �z� be the real part, the imaginary part and the modulus
of a complex number z, respectively. Let In (0n ) be the identity (zero) � matrix of
dimension n and 1n be the n × 1 column vector of all ones. Here, represents
the Kronecker product.
1.2.1 Basic results
Lemma 1.1 [32]

If the graph G has a spanning tree, then its Laplacian L has the following properties:
1. Zero is a simple eigenvalue of L, and 1n is the corresponding eigenvector, that
is L1n = 0.
2. The remaining n − 1 eigenvalues all have positive real parts. In particular, if
the graph G is undirected, then all these eigenvalues are positive and real.
Lemma 1.2 [16]

Consider a directed graph G. Let D ∈ �n×|E| be the 01-matrix with rows and columns
indexed by the nodes and edges of G, and E ∈ �|E|×n be the 01-matrix with rows and
columns indexed by the edges and nodes of G, such that
�
1 i f the node u is the tail o f the edge f
Du f = (1.1)
0 otherwise
�
1 i f the nodeu is the head o f the edge f
Efu = (1.2)
0 otherwise
where |E| is the number of the edges. Let Q = diag{q1 , q2 , . . . , q|E| }, where q p (p =
1, . . . , |E|) is the weight of the pth edge of G (i.e., the value of the adjacency matrix
on the pth edge). Then the Laplacian of G can be transformed into L = DQ(DT − E).
1.2.2 Laplacian spectrum of graphs

This section is a concise review of the relationship between the eigenvalues of a
Laplacian matrix and the topology of the associated graph. We refer the reader to
[11] for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. We list a collection of properties
associated with undirected graph Laplacians and adjacency matrices, which will
be used in subsequent sections of the paper.
A graph G is defined as
G = (V, A) (1.3)
where V is the set of nodes (or vertices) V = {1, . . . , N} and A ⊆ V × V the set
of edges (i, j) with i ∈ V, j ∈ V. The degree d j of a graph vertex j is the number
of edges which start from j. Let dmax (G) denote the maximum vertex degree of
the graph G.
1.2.3 Properties of adjacency matrix

We denote A(G) by the (0, 1) adjacency matrix of the graph G. Let Ai j ∈ R be
its i, j element, then Ai,i = 0, ∀i = 1, . . . , N, Ai, j = 0 if (i, j) ∈
/ A and Ai, j = 1 if
(i, j) ∈ A, ∀i, j = 1, . . . , N, i �= j. We will focus on undirected graphs, for which
the adjacency matrix is symmetric.
Let S(A(G)) = {λ1 (A(G)), . . . , λN (A(G))} be the spectrum of the adjacency
matrix associated with an undirected graph G arranged in non-decreasing semi-
order.
• Property 1: λN (A(G)) ≤ dmax (G).
This property together with Proposition 1 implies
• Property 2: γi ≥ 0, ∀γi ∈ S(dmax IN − A).
We define the Laplacian matrix of a graph G in the following way:
L(G) = D(G) − A(G) (1.4)
where D(G) is the diagonal matrix of vertex degrees di (also called the valence
matrix). Eigenvalues of Laplacian matrices have been widely studied by graph
theorists. Their properties are strongly related to the structural properties of their
associated graphs. Every Laplacian matrix is a singular matrix. By Gershgorin
theorem [15], the real part of each nonzero eigenvalue of L(G) is strictly positive.
For undirected graphs, L(G) is a symmetric, positive, semidefinite matrix, that
only has real eigenvalues. Let S(L(G)) = {λ1 (L(G)), . . . , λN (L(G))} be the spec
trum of the Laplacian matrix L associated with an undirected graph G arranged
in non-decreasing semi-order. Then,
• Property 3:
1. λ1 (L(G)) = 0 with corresponding eigenvector of all ones, and λ2 (L(G)) iff
G is connected. In fact, the multiplicity of 0 as an eigenvalue of L(G) is
equal to the number of connected components of G.
2. The modulus of λi (L(G)), i = 1, . . . , N is less then N.
The second smallest Laplacian eigenvalue λ2 (L(G)) of graphs is probably the
most important information contained in the spectrum of a graph. This eigen
value, called the algebraic connectivity of the graph, is related to several impor
tant graph invariants, and it has been extensively investigated.
Introduction � 5
Figure 1.1: Sample graph and Laplacian
Let L(G) be the Laplacian of a graph G with N vertices and with maximal
vertex degree dmax (G). Then properties of λ2 (L(G)) include
• Property 4:
1. λ2 (L(G)) ≤ (N/(N − 1)) min{d(v), v ∈ V};
2. λ2 (L(G)) ≤ v(G) ≤ η(G);
3. λ2 (L(G)) ≥ 2η(G)(1 − cos(π/N));
4. λ2 (L(G)) ≥ 2(cos Nπ − cos 2 Nπ )η(G) − 2 cos Nπ (1 − cos Nπ )dmax (G)
where v(G) is the vertex connectivity of the graph G (the size of a smallest set of
vertices whose removal renders G disconnected) and η(G) is the edge connectiv
ity of the graph G (the size of a smallest set of edges whose removal renders G
disconnected) [17].
Further relationships between the graph topology and Laplacian eigenvalue
locations are discussed in [14] for undirected graphs. Spectral characterization
of Laplacian matrices for directed graphs can be found in [15], see also Fig. 1.1.
A lemma about Laplacian L associated with a balanced digraph G is given
hereafter:
Lemma 1.3
If G is balanced, then there exists a unitary matrix
⎡ 1
∗ ... ∗
⎤
√
n
⎢ √1 ∗ . . . ∗ ⎥
⎢ n ⎥ m×n
V =⎢ ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ ∈ C (1.5)
⎥
⎣ . . . ⎦
√1 ∗ . . . ∗
n
such that
� �
0
V ∗ LV = = Λ ∈ Cn×n , H ∈ C(n−1)×(n−1) (1.6)
H
Moreover, if G has a globally reachable node, H + H ∗ is positive definite.

Proof 1.1 Let V = [ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζn ] be a unitary matrix where ζi ∈ Cn (i = 1, . . . , n)

are the column vectors of V and
√ √ √ √
ζ1 = (1/ n)1 = (1/ n, 1/ n, . . . , 1/ n)T
Notice that if G is balanced, it implies that ζ1∗ L = 0. Then we have
V ∗ LV = V ∗ L[ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζn ]
⎡ ∗ ⎤
ζ1
⎢ ζ∗ ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
= ⎢ . ⎥ [0n , Lζ2 , . . . , Lζn ]
⎣ .. ⎦
ζn∗
0 0Tn−2
� �
=
• H
Furthermore, if G has a globally reachable node, then L+LT is positive semi-definite,

see Theorem 7 in [18]. Hence, V ∗ (L + LT )V is also positive semidefinite. Further
more, we know that “zero” is a simple eigenvalue of L and, therefore, H + H ∗ is
positive definite.
As closing remarks, the Laplacian matrix satisfies the property L = CCT . It is

a well-known fact that this property holds regardless of the choice of the orienta
tion of G. Let xi denote a scalar real value assigned to vi . Then x = [x1 , ...., xn ]T
denotes the state of the graph G. We define the Laplacian Potential of the graph
as follows
1
ΨG (x) = xT L x (1.7)
2
From this definition, the following property of the Laplacian potential of the
graph follows:
Lemma 1.4
[33] The Laplacian potential of a graph is positive definite and satisfies the following
identity: �
xT L x = (x j (t) − xi (t))2 (1.8)
j∈INi
Moreover, given a connected graph, ΨG (x) = 0 if and only if xi = x j , ∀i, j.
It follows from 1.4, that the Laplacian potential of the graph ΨG (x) is a mea
sure of the total disagreement among all nodes. If at least two neighboring nodes
of ΨG disagree, then ΦG > 0. Hence, minimizing ΨG is equivalent to reaching a
consensus, which signifies a fundamental key in the design of consensus proto
cols.
Introduction � 7
Remark 1.1 It well know that for a connected graph that is undirected, the fol
lowing well-known property holds [10]:
xt Lx
min = λ2 (L) (1.9)
�
x=01tx=0 ||x||2
The proof follows from a special case of Courant–Fischer Theorem in [52]. A con
nection between λ2 (L̂) with L̂ = 12 (L + Lt ), called the Fiedler eigenvalue of (L̂) [53]
and the performance (that is, worst case speed of convergence) of protocol (.) on
digraphs is established in [11].
Remark 1.2 Consider a simple digraph G = (V, E, A) with V = {v1 , v2 , ..., vn } a

nonempty finite set of nodes or vertices, a set of edges or arcs E ⊆ V × V and an
adjacency matrix A = [ai j ] with weights ai j > 0 if (v j , vi ) ∈ E and ai j = 0 otherwise.
Let (vi , vi ) ∈
/= E∀i, with no self loops, and no multiple edges in the same direction
between the same pairs of nodes. Thus, aii = 0. Define the in-degree of node vi as
the i − th row sum of A, din (vi ) = nj=1 ai j , and the out-degree of node vi as the
�
i − th column sum of A, dout (vi ) = nj=1 ai j . The node of a digraph is balanced if

�
and only if its in-degree and out-degree are equal, i.e., din (vi ) = dout (vi ). A graph
G is called balanced if and only if all of its nodes are balanced. Define the diago
nal in-degree matrix D = diag {din (vi )} and the graph Laplacian matrix L = D − A.
The set of neighbours of a node vi is Ni = {v j : (v j , vi ) ∈ E}, the set of nodes with
edges incoming to vi . A directed path is a sequence of nodes v1 , v2 , ..., vr such that
(vi , vi+1 ) ∈ E,i ∈ {1, 2, ..., r − 1} A semipath is a sequence of nodes v1 , v2 , ..., vr such
that (vi , vi+1 ) ∈ E, or (vi+1 , vi ) ∈ E, i ∈ {1, 2, ..., r − 1}. Node vi is said to be con
nected to node v j if there is a directed path from vi to v j . Node vi is called a root
node if it has a directed path to all other nodes. Graph G is said to be strongly con
nected if there is a directed path from every node to every other node and weakly
connected if any two different nodes are connected by a semipath. A subgraph of G
is a digraph whose vertices and edges belong to V and E, respectively. A spanning
subgraph of G is a subgraph of G with vertices V . A directed tree is a connected
digraph where every node has in-degree equal to one, except for one with in-degree
of zero. A spanning tree of a digraph is a directed tree formed by graph edges that
connects all the nodes of the graph. A graph is said to have a spanning tree if a sub
set of the edges forms a directed tree. This is equivalent to saying that all nodes in
the graph are reachable from a single (root) node.
1.2.4 Nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems

In multi-agent systems, the network topology among all vehicles plays a crucial
role in determining consensus. The objective here is to explicitly identify nec
essary and/or sufficient conditions on the network topology, such that consensus
can be achieved under properly designed algorithms.
It is often reasonable to consider the case when the network topology is deter
ministic under ideal communication channels. Accordingly, main research on the
consensus problem was conducted under a deterministic fixed/switching network
topology. That is, the adjacency matrix A(t) is deterministic. Some other times,
when considering random communication failures, random packet drops, and
communication channel instabilities inherited in physical communication chan
nels, it is necessary and important to study consensus problem in the stochas
tic setting, where a network topology evolves according to some random dis
tributions. That is, the adjacency matrix A(t) is stochastically evolving. In the
deterministic setting, consensus is said to be achieved if all agents eventually
reach agreement on a common state. In the stochastic setting, consensus is said
to be achieved almost surely (respectively, in mean-square or in probability) if all
agents reach agreement on a common state almost surely (respectively, in mean-
square or in probability). Note that the problem studied in the stochastic setting
is slightly different from that studied in the deterministic setting due to the differ
ent assumptions in terms of the network topology. Consensus over a stochastic
network topology was perhaps first studied in [19], where some sufficient con
ditions on the network topology were given to guarantee consensus with prob
ability one for systems with single-integrator kinematics. For consensus under
a stochastic network topology, some results were reported in [20]–[28], where
research efforts were conducted for systems with single-integrator kinematics
[20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27] or double-integrator dynamics [28]. Consensus
for single-integrator kinematics under stochastic network topology has been ex
tensively studied in particular, where some general conditions for almost-surely
consensus were derived [22], [23], [26]. Loosely speaking, almost-surely con
sensus for single-integrator kinematics can be achieved, i.e., xi (t) − x j (t) → 0
almost surely, if and only if the expectation of the network topology, namely,
the network topology associated with expectation E [A(t)], has a directed span
ning tree. It is worth noting that the conditions are analogous to that in [24],
[25], but in the stochastic setting. In view of the special structure of the closed-
loop systems concerning consensus for single-integrator kinematics, basic prop
erties of the stochastic matrices play a crucial role in the convergence analysis
of the associated control algorithms. Consensus for double-integrator dynamics
was studied in [28], where the switching network topology is assumed to be
driven by a Bernoulli process, and it was shown that consensus can be achieved
if the union of all the graphs has a directed spanning tree. Apparently, the re
quirement on the network topology for double-integrator dynamics is a special
case of that for single integrator kinematics due to the different nature of the final
states (constant final states for single-integrator kinematics and possible dynamic
final states for double-integrator dynamics) caused by the substantial dynamical
difference. Whether some general conditions (corresponding to some specific al
gorithms) can be found for consensus with double-integrator dynamics is still an
open question.
Introduction � 9
In addition to analyzing the conditions on the network topology, such that

consensus can be achieved, a special type of consensus algorithm, the so-called
gossip algorithm [29], [30], has been used to achieve consensus in the stochastic
setting. The gossip algorithm can always guarantee consensus almost surely if the
available pairwise communication channels satisfy certain conditions (such as a
connected graph or a graph with a directed spanning tree). The way of network
topology switching does not play any role in the consideration of consensus.
In what follows, we proceed to establish notation and definitions, then re
view some basic results for nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems ([356];
[364];[370]). Specifically, R denotes the set of real numbers, Rn denotes the set
of n × 1 real column vectors, and Rn×m denotes the set of n × m real matrices. We
write || · || for the Euclidean vector norm, || · ||F for the Frobenius matrix norm,
|| · ||1 for the absolute sum norm, AT for the transpose of the matrix A, and In or I
for the n×n identity matrix. We define a complete probability space as (Ω, F, P),
where Ω denotes the sample space, F denotes a σ -algebra, and P defines a prob
ability measure on the σ -algebra F; that is, P is a nonnegative countably additive
set function on F such that P(Ω) = 1 ([356]). Furthermore, we assume that w(·)
is a standard d-dimensional Wiener process defined by (w(·), Ω, F, Pw0 ), where
Pw0 is the classical Wiener measure ([370], p. 10), with a continuous-time fil
tration Ft t≥0 generated by the Wiener process w(t) up to time t. We denote a
stochastic dynamical system by G generating a filtration Ft t≥0 adapted to the
stochastic process x : R̄+ × Ω → D on (Ω, F, Px0 ) satisfying Fτ ⊂ Ft , 0τ < t,
such that ω ∈: x(t, ω) ∈ B ∈ Ft ,t ≥ 0, for all Borel sets B ⊂ Rn contained in the
Borel σ -algebra Bn . Here, we use the notation x(t) to represent the stochastic
process x(t, ω), omitting its dependence on ω.
Finally, we write tr(·) for the trace operator, ⊗ for the Kronecker
�
product, (·)−1 for the inverse operator, V (x) � ∂V∂ (xx) for the Frchet
�� 2
derivative of V at x,V (x) � ∂ ∂Vx(2x) for the Hessian of V at x, and
Hn (resp., H[ n × m]) for the Hilbert space of random vectors x ∈ Rn
(resp., random matrices X ∈ R[ n × m]) with finite average power, that is,
Hn x :→ Rn : E[xT x] < ∞ (resp., Hn×m X :→ Rn×m : E[||X||F ] < ∞). Further
more, we write λmin (A)(resp., λmax (A)) for the minimum (resp., maximum)
eigenvalue of the Hermitian matrix A and x (resp., x̄) for the lower bound (resp.,
upper bound) of a bounded signal x, that is, for x(t) ∈ Hn ,t ≥ 0, x ≤ ||x(t)||,t ≥ 0
(resp., ||x(t)||a.s. ≤ x̄,t ≥ 0). For y ∈ Rn or y(t) ∈ Hn ,t ≥ 0, [y]i denotes the ith
component of y or y(t), and for an open set D ⊆ Rn , HnD � x ∈ Hn : x : Ω → D
denotes the set of all the random vectors in Hn induced by D. Similarly, for ev
ery x0 ∈ Rn , Hn x0 � x ∈ Hn : x = x0 . Finally, C2 denotes the space of real-valued
functions V : D → R that are two-times continuously differentiable with respect
to x ∈ D ⊆ Rn .
Consider now the nonlinear stochastic dynamical system G given by
dx(t) = f (x(t))dt + D(x(t))dw(t), x(t0 )a.s. = x0 ,t ≥ t0, (1.10)

where, for every t ≥ 0, x(t) ∈ HnD is a Ft-measurable random state vector, x(t0 ) ∈
Hnx0, D ⊆ Rn is an open set with 0 ∈ D, w(t) is a d-dimensional independent
standard Wiener process (i.e., Brownian motion) defined on a complete filtered
probability space (Ω, Ft t≥t0 , P), x(t0 ) is independent of (w(t) − w(t0)), t ≥ t0 , and
f : D → Rn and D : D → Rn×d are continuous functions and satisfy f (xe ) = 0 and
D(xe ) = 0 for some xe ∈ D . Here, we assume that f : D → Rn andD : D → Rn×d
satisfy the uniform Lipschitz continuity condition:
|| f (x) − f (y)|| + ||D(x) − D(y)||F ≤ L||x − y||, x, y ∈ D (1.11)
and the growth restriction condition
|| f (x)||2 + ||D(x)||2F ≤ L2 (1 + ||x||2 ), x ∈ D, (1.12)
for some Lipschitz constant L > 0.

Hence, since x(t0 ) ∈ HnD and x(t0 ) is independent of (w(t) − w(t0 )),t ≥ t0 , it
follows that there exists a unique solution x ∈ L2 (Ω, F, P), where L2 (Ω, F, P) de
notes the set of equivalence class of measurable and square integrable Rn valued
random processes on (Ω, F, P) over the semi-infinite parameter space [0, ∞), to
(1.10) in the following sense. For every x ∈ HnD \{0} there exists Tx > 0 such that
if x1 : [t0 , τ1 ] × Ω → D and x2 : [t0 , τ2 ] × Ω → D are two solutions of (1.10); that
is, if x1 , x2 ∈ L2 (Ω, F, P) �with continuous sample paths
� almost surely solve (1),
then Tx ≤ minτ1 , τ2 and P x1 (t) = x2 (t),t0 ≤ t ≤ Tx = 1. The following defini
tion introduces the notions of boundedness and uniform ultimate boundednesss
for stochastic dynamical systems.
Definition 1.1 ([376]; [383]): The pathwise trajectory x(t) ∈ HnD ,t ≥ 0, of (1.10)
in (Ω, {Ft }t≥t0 , Px0 ) is bounded in probability if limc→∞ supt≥0 P||x(t)|| > c = 0.
Furthermore, x(t) ∈ HnD ,t ≥ 0, is uniformly ultimately bounded in the pth moment if,
for every compact subset Dc ⊂ Rn and all x(0)a.s. = x0 ∈ Dc , there exist ε > 0 and
a finite-time T = T (ε, x0 ) such that Ex0 [||x(t)|| p ] < ε for all t > 0 + T . If, in addition,
p = 2, then we say that x(t),t ≥ 0, is uniformly ultimately bounded in a mean square
sense.
The following lemma is needed for the main result of this section. First, how
ever, recall that the infinitesimal generator L of x(t),t ≥ 0, with x(0)a.s. = x0 , is
defined by
Ex0 [V (x(t))] −V (x0 )

LV (x0 ) � lim+ , x0 ∈ D (1.13)
t →0 t
where Ex0 denotes the expectation with respect to the transition probability mea
sure Px0 (x(t) ∈ B) � P(t0 , x0 ,t, B) ([370], Def. 7.7). If V ∈ C2 and has a compact
support, and x(t),t ≥ 0, satisfies (1.10), then the limit in (1.13) exists for all
Introduction � 11
x ∈ D and the infinitesimal generator L of x(t),t ≥ 0, can be characterised by

the system drift and diffusion functions, f (x) and D(x), defining the stochastic
dynamical system (1.10) and is given in [370],
∂V (x) 1 ∂ 2V (x)
LV (x) � f (x) + trDT (x) D(x), x ∈ D. (1.14)
∂x 2 ∂ x2
Lemma 1.5
([362]): Consider the nonlinear stochastic dynamical system G given by (1.10). If
there exist a two-times continuously differentiable function V : Rn → R+ , positive
constants β1 > 0 and β2 > 0, and class K∞ functions α1 : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) and
α2 : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that
α1 (||x||) ≤ V (x) ≤ α2 (||x||), x ∈ Rn , (1.15)

LV (x) ≤ −β1V (x) + β2 , x ∈ Rn , (1.16)
then
β2
Ex0 [V (x(t))] ≤ V (x(0))e−β1 t + ,t ≥ 0. (1.17)
β1
Finally, we recall some basic notation from graph theory [10]. Specifically,
G = (V, E, A) denotes a weighted directed graph (or digraph) denoting the static
network (or static graph) with the set of nodes (or vertices) V = 1, . . . , N in
volving a finite nonempty set denoting the agents, the set of edges E ⊆ V × V
involving a set of ordered pairs denoting the direction of information flow be
tween agents, and a weighted adjacency matrix A ∈ RN×N such that A(i, j) =
ai j > 0, i, j = 1, . . . , N, i f ( j, i) ∈ E, and ai j = 0, otherwise. The edge ( j, i) ∈ E
denotes that agent i can obtain information from agent j, but not necessarily vice
versa. Moreover, we assume that aii = 0 for all i ∈ V.
Note that if the weights ai j , i, j = 1, . . . , N, are not relevant, then ai j is set to 1
for all ( j, i) ∈ E. In this case, A is called a normalized adjacency matrix.
Every edge l ∈ E corresponds to an ordered pair of vertices (i, j) ∈ V × V,
where i and j are the initial and terminal vertices of the edge l. In this case, l
is incident into j and incident out of i. Finally, we say that G is strongly (resp.,
weakly) connected if for every ordered pair of vertices (i, j), i �= j, there exists a
directed (resp., undirected) path, that is, a directed (resp., undirected) sequence
of arcs leading from i to j.
The in-neighbours and out-neighbours of node i are, respectively, defined
as Nin (i) � { j ∈ V : ( j, i) ∈ E} and Vout (i) � { j ∈ V : (i, j) ∈ E}. The in-
degree degin (i) of node i is the number of edges incident into i and the out-
degree degout (i) of node i is the number of edges incident out of i, that is,
�N �N
degin (i) � j=1 a ji and degout (i) � j=1 a ji . We say that the node i of a di
graph G is balanced if deg in (i) = degin (i), and a graph G is called balanced
�N �N
if all of its nodes are balanced, that is, j=1 a ji = j=1 ai j , i = 1, . . . , N. Fur
thermore, we define the graph Laplacian of G by L � D − A, where D �
diag[degin (1), . . . ,degin (N)].
A graph or undirected graph G associated with the adjacency matrix A ∈
RN×N is a directed graph for which the arc set is symmetric, that is, A = AT . In
this case, Nin (i) = Nout (i)N (i) and degin (i) = degout (i) � deg(i), i = 1, . . . , N.
Furthermore, in this case, we say that G is connected if for every ordered pair of
� j, there exists a path, that is, a sequence of arcs, leading from
vertices (i, j), i =
i to j. Finally, the leader adjacency matrix Q =diag[q1 , . . . , qN ] ∈ RN×N is such
that qi > 0 when agent i has direct access to the leader and qi = 0 otherwise.
Furthermore, the set of nodes that do not have access to the leader information is
denoted by NI , whereas the set of nodes with access to the leader information is
denoted by NII . It is clear that NI ∩ NII = ØandNI ∪ NII = 1, . . . , N .
1.2.5 Complex dynamical systems

As a direct extension of the study of the consensus problem for systems with
simple dynamics, for example, with single-integrator kinematics or double-
integrator dynamics, consensus with general linear dynamics was also studied
recently, where research was mainly devoted to finding feedback control laws,
such that consensus (in terms of the output states) can be achieved for general
linear systems
ẋ = Axi + Bui , yi = Cxi , (1.18)
where A, B, and C are constant matrices with compatible sizes. Apparently,
the well-studied single-integrator kinematics and double-integrator dynamics are
special cases of (1.18) for properly choosing A, B and C. Consensus for complex
systems has also been extensively studied. Here, the term consensus for complex
systems is used for the study of consensus problem when the system dynamics
are nonlinear or with nonlinear consensus algorithms. Examples of the nonlinear
system dynamics studied in the consensus problem include:
� Nonlinear oscillators. The dynamics are often assumed to be governed
by the Kuramoto equation
N
K�
θ̇ = ωi + sin(θ j − θi ), i = 1, 2, ..., N (1.19)
N j=1
where θi and ωi are, respectively, the phase and natural frequency of the
ith oscillator, N is the number of oscillators, and K is the control gain.
Generally, the control gain K plays a crucial role in determining the syn
chronizability of the network.
Introduction � 13
� Complex networks. The dynamics are typically represented as
N
�
ẋ(t) = f (xi (t)) + c ai j (t)Γ(x j (t) − xi (t)), i = 1, 2, ..., N (1.20)
� i
j=1, j=
where xi = (xi1 , xi2 , ..., xin )T ∈ Rn is the state vector of the ith node,
f : Rn → Rn is a nonlinear vector function, c is the overall coupling
strength, A(t) = [ai j (t)] is the outer coupling matrix with ai j (t) = 1 if
node i and node j are connected at time t, otherwise ai j (t) = 0, with
aii (t) = ki (degree of node i), and Γ is a general inner coupling matrix
describing the inner interactions between different state components of
agents. It is easy to see that model
ẋi (t) = ui (t), i = 1, ..., n, (1.21)
with control input

n
�
ui (t) = ai j (t) [x j − xi ] (1.22)
j=1
is a special case of (1.18) with f = 0.

� Nonholonomic mobile robots. The dynamics are described by
ẋ = ui cosθi , ẏ = ui sinθi , θ̇i = ωi , i = 1, 2, ..., N, (1.23)
where [xi , yi ] denotes the location of the ith agent, and ui and ωi denote,
respectively, its translational and rotational velocity. Note that there are
three states and two control inputs. Therefore, the dynamics for nonholo
nomic mobile robots are underactuated. This poses substantial difficulties
in designing proper consensus algorithms with corresponding stability
analysis.
� Rigid bodies and the like. One typical (but not unique) description of the
dynamics is
Mi (qi )q̈i +Ci (qi , q̇i )q̇i + gi (qi ) = τi , i = 1, 2, ..., N, (1.24)
where qi ∈ R p is the vector of generalized coordinates, Mi (qi ) ∈ R p×p is

the symmetric positive-definite inertia matrix, Ci (qi , q̇i )q̇i ∈ R p is the vec
tor of Coriolis and centrifugal torques, gi (qi ) is the vector of gravitational
torques, and τi ∈ R p is the vector of torques produced by the actuators

associated with the ith agent. In practice, the dynamics of many mechan
ical systems are similar to (1.24). A notable property regarding the dy
namics
� of rigid bodies is � that Ṁi (qi) − 2Ci (qi , q̇i ) is skew-symmetric (i.e.,
zT Ṁi (qi) − 2Ci (qi , q̇i ) z = 0 for all z ∈ R p ), which plays a crucial role
in finding Lyapunov functions and the subsequent stability analysis.
One particular interesting topic is synchronization in complex networks,

which has been widely investigated in the past decade. Mathematically, the def
initions for synchronization in complex networks and consensus in multiagent
systems are very similar, so in order to differentiate these two definitions and
promote research exchanges in these two topics, their differences are briefly sum
marized below.
1. Different Asymptotic States (Nonlinear Dynamics versus Linear Dynam

ics). In the studies of synchronization in complex networks, researchers
focus on synchronization with self-nonlinear dynamics, where each single
system is unstable and, thus, the final asymptotic synchronization state is
typically time-varying. However, in the investigations of multiagent sys
tems, the individual self-dynamics on each system are usually linear or
zero and, therefore, the asymptotic consensus state is usually a constant.
2. Different Focuses (Known Connectivity versus Time-Varying Distributed
Protocol). In synchronization of complex networks, the aim is to reveal
how the network structure, which is known a priori, affects the nonlinear
collective dynamics, while the aim of consensus in multiagent systems
is to figure out how the designed distributed local protocol concerning
mobile time-varying network structure affects the consensus behavior.
3. Different Approaches (Lyapunov Method versus Stochastic Matrix The
ory). Since both complex networks and multiagent systems are networked
systems, algebraic graph theory is a common approach to use. Because
of the nonlinear terms in synchronization of complex networks, Lyapunov
function method is usually used together with matrix theory. In order to
show consensus in multiagent systems with time-varying network struc
tures, stochastic matrix theory and convex analysis are often applied.
4. Different Inner Matrices (Γ) (General Inner Matrix versus Particular Inner
Matrix). In the typical simple consensus model, the inner matrices Γ are
usually an identity matrix and a rank-one matrix
� �
0 1
0 0
for multiagent systems with single-integrator kinematics and double-
integrator dynamics, respectively. In consensus models with higher–order
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
hesitation Maudslay pointed to a worn-out bench vice and asked
whether he could take his rank among the other workmen if he could
fix it as good as new before the end of the day. He was told to go
ahead. He resteeled and trued the jaws, filed them up, recut and
hardened them, and before the time set had it together, trimmer and
in better shape than any of its neighbors. It was examined, admired
and accepted as his diploma as a journeyman.
His advancement was rapid, and in about a year, while still only
nineteen, he was made general foreman and maintained his
leadership without the slightest difficulty. He remained with Bramah
for eight years, during which time the two laid the foundation for
many of the modern machine tools, more especially the slide-rest
and screw-cutting lathe. We have already considered Maudslay’s
work done in connection with Bramah and little need be added here
in regard to it. During this time Bramah invented the hydraulic press,
but the cup-leather packing which is so essential a part of it was
suggested by Maudslay.
He left the Pimlico shop because Bramah would not give him more
than 30 shillings ($7.50) a week, and with a single helper started a
little blacksmithing and jobbing shop on his own account near Wells
and Oxford streets in London.
His first customer was an artist who gave him an order for an iron
easel. Business prospered and he found plenty of work. His
reputation was established, however, in connection with the
Portsmouth block machinery, which was described in the last
chapter. The building of this machinery occupied about eight years,
from 1800 to 1808. The design was substantially Brunel’s, but Mr.
Nasmyth says that “every member of it was full of Maudslay’s
presence and the mechanical perfection of its details, its
practicability and adaptability show his handiwork at every turn.”
Soon after this work was undertaken, Maudslay moved his shop to
Margaret Street, near Cavendish Square. During the building of the
block machinery Maudslay had met Joshua Field, who had been
engaged as a draftsman in the Portsmouth dockyards under Sir
Samuel Bentham and had worked with him in the development of the
machinery. Field was transferred to General Bentham’s office at the
Admiralty in 1804, and a year later joined Maudslay. Five years later
they moved to Lambeth on the south side of the Thames and bought
an old riding school on Westminster Road on what was formerly a
swampy marsh. Here the firm of Maudslay & Field continued its long
and famous career. Few firms have influenced mechanical
development more, and for many years it was one of the leading
machine shops of the world. Here Maudslay did his life work as one
of the leaders in the development not only of machine tools but of
the steam engine, both stationary and marine. After his death in
1831 the business was continued by Mr. Field, who outlived him
many years, and by Maudslay’s son and grandson, both of whom
were fine mechanics and men of great influence.
It was in connection with the slide-rest and screw-cutting lathe that
Maudslay is best known. Too much value cannot be placed on the
slide-rest and its combination with a lead screw, operated by change
gears. It is used in some form in almost every machine tool and is
one of the great inventions of history.
Like most of the great inventions, it was the work of many men. In
crude applications, parts of it date back to the Middle Ages.
Leonardo da Vinci caught an inkling of it. French writers in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries describe and illustrate devices
which involve the parts of it. Fig. 13, reproduced from an illustration
in the old work of Besson, first published in 1569,[32] shows a lead
screw. The copy from which this illustration was taken is printed in
Latin and is in the Astor library, New York. The upper shaft had three
drums; the middle one carried the rope which was manipulated by
the operator. Of the drums at the ends, the one at the left operated a
lead screw and the one on the right, the piece being cut. The two
outer weights held the follower up against the lead screw. The
cutting was, of course, intermittent, as in all the earlier types of
lathes. The idea of the lead screw occurs in other French works of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the lathe shown in Fig.
14, from a French book published in 1741,[33] gears instead of ropes
were used to connect the rotation of the lead screw with that of the
work, but if the idea of change gears was contemplated, it was not
developed.
[32] “Des Instruments Mathématiques et Méchaniques, &c., Inventées
par Jacques Besson.” First Latin and French Edit., 1569. Plate 9. Two later
editions were published at Lyons, one in 1578 and one in 1582. The same
copper plates were used in the three editions.
[33] Holtzapffel: “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, p. 618.
London, 1847.
Figure 13. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, Previous to 1569

Figure 14. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1740
The slide-rest was also known. An illustration of a French slide-

rest, published long before Maudslay’s time, is reproduced in Fig. 3.
In Bramah’s original “slide-tool,” the tail-stock and slide-rest were
combined.[34] It was made about 1795 by Maudslay while still his
foreman. How much of the design was Bramah’s and how much
Maudslay’s we cannot tell. It was a light, flimsy affair and very
different from the slide-rests Maudslay was making only a few years
later.
[34] Buchanan: “Practical Essays on Mill Work and Other Machinery.”
London, 1841. Volume of Plates.
In none of these was the slide-rest combined with change gears

and a power-driven lead screw. It was this combination which formed
Maudslay’s great contribution, together with improvements in
proportion and in mechanical design which raised the device from an
ingenious but cumbersome mechanical movement to an instrument
of precision and power. Jesse Ramsden, a famous instrument
maker, is said to have made a small lathe in 1775, which had change
wheels and a sliding tool holder moved by a lead screw. The writer
has been unable to find any illustration or description of it, and if
such a lathe existed, it certainly did not exert a very wide influence.
The combination was anticipated in Bentham’s famous patent of
1793. In this patent Bentham says: “When the motion is of a rotative
kind, advancement (of the tool) may be provided by hand, yet
regularity may be more effectually insured by the aid of mechanism.
For this purpose one expedient is the connecting, for instance, by
cogged wheels, of the advancing motion of the piece with the
rotative motion of the tool.”[35] This patent contained no drawings,
and the suggestion was not, so far as is known, embodied in any
definite construction.
[35] See the British patent records. Patent No. 1951, dated April 23,
1793.
Many men were working at the problem of generating an accurate

screw thread. The use of dies was quite well known, but their design
and workmanship was of the crudest order and their product of the
same character; and they were inadequate for the making of any
large threads. Holtzapffel’s book on “Turning and Mechanical
Manipulation,” published in London, 1847, describes some of the
attempts of the earlier mechanics to devise other means.[36] At the
famous Soho works in Birmingham a workman by the name of
Anthony Robinson cut a screw 7 feet long and 6 inches in diameter
with a square, triple thread. After the cylinder had been turned, paper
was cut and fitted around it, removed, marked in ink with parallel
oblique lines, then replaced on the cylinder and the lines were
pricked through with a center punch. The paper was again removed
and dots connected by fine lines with a file. The alternate spaces
between the lines were then cut out with a chisel and hammer and
smoothed by filing. A block of lead and tin, as a temporary guide nut,
was then cast around the partially formed screw. Adjustable cutters
were fixed upon this guide nut and it was used as a kind of tool-
holding slide-rest, being rotated around the screw by hand levers,
thereby cutting the finished thread. In other words, a lead screw was
cut on the piece itself and the temporary nut was used as a tool
holder to finish the work.
[36] Holtzapffel. Vol. II, pp. 635-655.
One method used for some purposes was to coil two wires around
a core in close contact with each other. One of these was then
removed, leaving a space corresponding to the hollow of the thread.
The core and remaining wire were then dipped in melted tin and
soldered together. In some cases they were actually used in this
form as the desired screw thread. In others, the helical wire was
used to guide a sleeve nut which controlled a tool used to cut a
thread located farther up on the length of the core.
Another method resorted to was that of grooving a smooth cylinder
by a sharp-edged cutter standing at the required pitch angle and
relying on the contact of the knife-edge to produce the proper
traverse along the cylinder as it was rotated, thus developing the
screw. This method is not so crude as it seems and was one of those
used by Maudslay himself. He also used a flat steel tape wound
about a cylindrical bar, but he found the inclined knife method more
satisfactory. The device which he used was a mechanism of
considerable refinement. He employed cylinders of wood, tin, brass
and other soft metals accurately mounted to revolve between
centers. The hardened knife was crescent-shaped, nearly fitting the
cylinder, and fixed at the required angle with great precision by
means of a large graduated wheel and tangent screw. A chasing tool
carried by a small, adjustable slide cut the thread as the stock
moved forward under the incisive action of the inclined knife edge.
Hundreds of screws, both right and left, were made by this device,
and their agreement with each other is said to have been
remarkable. This was the way in which Maudslay generated his first
lead screws.
With the best of the screws so obtained Maudslay made the first
screw-cutting lathe a few years prior to 1800, shown in Fig. 15,[37]
which had two triangular bars for a bed, and was about three feet
long. The headstock carried a live spindle, which was connected with
a lead screw by a pair of gears, and a slide-rest ran upon the
triangular bars under control of a lead screw having four square
threads per inch. In this machine he at first used different lead
screws for different pitches. The inner end of the lower spindle in the
headstock had a two-jawed driving device, which might be
disconnected and into which various lead screws might be fitted.
Later he added change gear wheels.
[37] No. 1601 in South Kensington Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, p. 266.
The great idea of using a single lead screw for various pitches, by
means of change gears, was Maudslay’s own. Fig. 16 shows how
rapidly the idea was developed.[38] This machine, built about 1800, is
distinctly modern in appearance. It has a substantial, well-designed,
cast-iron bed, a lead screw with 30 threads to the inch, a back rest
for steadying the work, and was fitted with 28 change wheels with
teeth varying in number from 15 to 50. The intermediate wheel had a
wide face and was carried on the swinging, adjustable arm in order
to mesh with wheels of various diameters on the fixed centers.
Sample screws having from 16 to 100 threads per inch are shown on
the rack in front. Both of these lathes are now in the South
Kensington Museum in London. With lathes of this design, Maudslay
cut the best screws which had been made up to that time. One of
these was 5 feet long, 2 inches in diameter, with 50 threads to the
inch, and the nut fitted to it was 12 inches long, thus engaging 600
threads. “This screw was principally used for dividing scales for
astronomical and other metrical purposes of the highest class. By its
means divisions were produced with such minuteness that they
could only be made visual by a microscope.”[39]
[38] No. 1602 in South Kensington Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, pp. 266-267.
[39] “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” p. 140. London, 1883.
Some idea of how far Maudslay was in advance of his time is

shown by the fact that the wooden pole-lathes in Fig. 2 represent
fairly the state of the art at that time. This form had been in use in
many countries for centuries. One of these wooden lathes, built in
1800, the same year as Maudslay’s lathe, Fig. 16, is also in the
South Kensington Museum, and was in use as late as 1879. Similar
lathes are said to be still used by chair makers in certain portions of
England.[40]
[40] No. 1596 in South Kensington. Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, p. 264.
About 1830, shortly before his death, Maudslay designed and

constructed a lathe with a face-plate 9 feet in diameter operating
over a pit 20 feet deep. This lathe had a massive bed and was used
to turn flywheel rims. It was fitted with a boring bar and was capable
of boring steam cylinders up to 10 feet in diameter. We regret that no
picture of this lathe is available. It would be interesting as it would
show in a striking way the development of the slide-rest and lathe in
the hands of this great mechanic.
Maudslay’s work on the screw thread was not confined to the
lathe. He improved the system of taps and dies whereby they were
made to cut the threads instead of squeezing them up, and he
introduced the use of three or more cutting edges.[41] He made the
first move toward the systematizing of thread sizes and made a
series of taps from 6 inches in diameter, for tapping steam pistons,
down to the smallest sizes used in watch work. The diameters of
these taps varied by eighths and sixteenths of an inch, and their
threads were determined by the respective strengths of each screw.
He established for his own use definite standard pitches. Many
copies of these threads found their way to other shops and
influenced the construction of similar tools elsewhere. In fact,
Holtzapffel says: “I believe it may be fairly advanced, that during the
period from 1800 to 1810, Mr. Maudslay effected nearly the entire
change from the old, imperfect, accidental practice of screw making
to the modern, exact, systematic mode now generally followed by
engineers; and he pursued the subject of the screw with more or less
ardour, and at an enormous expense, until his death.”[42]
[41] Holtzapffel, Vol. II, p. 646.
[42] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 647.
Figure 15. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe
About 1797
Figure 16. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe
About 1800
While we would not detract from the ingenuity of others who

conceived the idea of the slide-rest and lead screw, enough has
been given to show that no other mechanic of his day appreciated
their possibilities as he did, and none embodied them in forms as
useful. The fact that for many years the slide-rest was popularly
known as “Maudslay’s go-cart” indicates that his contemporaries
recognized him as its originator.
The business at Lambeth grew steadily until it employed several
hundred men, and embraced the making of saw- and flour-mills, mint
machinery and steam engines of all kinds. With his keen mechanical
intuition he saw that the cumbersome wooden walking beam
characteristic of the Newcomen and Watt engines was unnecessary.
He therefore dispensed with it and drove direct from the engine
crosshead to the crank, thus making the first direct-acting engine,
which held the market for a long time. He built the first marine
engines in England, and his leadership in that field was
unchallenged for many years. Another of his inventions was the
punching machine for punching boiler plates and iron work. His
influence was felt in many directions in the field of machine design.
He was the first to point out the weakness of the clean, sharp
corners in castings which were so prized at that time, and advocated
the use of fillets, showing that they greatly increased the strength.
To the end of his life he retained his personal dexterity at both the
anvil and the bench. One of his greatest delights was to go into the
shop and “have a go” at a piece of work which his workmen found
impossible to do. One of his old workmen, years afterward, speaking
in kindling pride of him, said: “It was a pleasure to see him handle a
tool of any kind, but he was quite splendid with an 18-inch file.”
Nasmyth confirms this, saying: “To be permitted to stand by and
observe the systematic way in which Mr. Maudslay would first mark
or line out his work, and the masterly manner in which he would deal
with his materials, and cause them to assume the desired forms,
was a treat beyond all expression. Every stroke of the hammer,
chisel, or file, told as an effective step towards the intended result. It
was a never-to-be-forgotten lesson in workmanship, in the most
exalted sense of the term.... No one that I ever met with could go
beyond Henry Maudslay himself in his dexterous use of the file. By a
few masterly strokes he could plane surfaces so true that when their
accuracy was tested by a standard plane surface of absolute truth
they were never found defective; neither convex nor concave nor
‘cross-winding,’—that is, twisted.”[43]
[43] “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” pp. 147-148. London, 1883.
Whitworth is usually credited with having been the originator of the

method of making plane surfaces three at a time, using them to
correct each other. Nasmyth, however, says that Maudslay used this
method and that surface plates so made were in daily use in his
shop. His testimony is so clear that it is given in full: “The importance
of having Standard Planes caused him [i.e., Maudslay] to have many
of them placed on the benches beside his workmen, by means of
which they might at once conveniently test their work. Three of each
were made at a time so that by the mutual rubbing of each on each
the projecting surfaces were effaced. When the surfaces approached
very near to the true plane, the still projecting minute points were
carefully reduced by hard steel scrapers, until at last the standard
plane surface was secured. When placed over each other they
would float upon the thin stratum of air between them until dislodged
by time and pressure. When they adhered closely to each other, they
could only be separated by sliding each off each. This art of
producing absolutely plane surfaces is, I believe, a very old
mechanical ‘dodge.’ But, as employed by Maudslay’s men, it greatly
contributed to the improvement of the work turned out. It was used
for the surfaces of slide valves, or wherever absolute true plane
surfaces were essential to the attainment of the best results, not only
in the machinery turned out, but in educating the taste of his men
towards first-class workmanship.”[44] Whitworth’s later success with
the generation of plane surfaces seems clearly to be a refinement
and outgrowth of Maudslay’s work.
[44] Ibid., pp. 148-149.
Maudslay’s standard of accuracy carried him beyond the use of

ordinary calipers, and he had a bench micrometer of great accuracy
which he kept in his own workshop and always referred to as “The
Lord Chancellor.” It was about 16 inches long and had two plane
jaws and a horizontal screw. The scale was graduated to inches and
tenths of an inch; and the index disk on the screw to one hundred
equal parts. Speaking from the standpoint of fifty years ago,
Nasmyth says: “Not only absolute measure could be obtained by this
means, but also the amount of minute differences could be
ascertained with a degree of exactness that went quite beyond all
the requirements of engineering mechanism; such, for instance, as
the thousandth part of an inch.”[45]
[45] Ibid., p. 150.
Maudslay’s record, as left behind him in steel and iron, would give
him a secure place in engineering history, but his influence as a
trainer of men is quite as great. He loved good work for its own sake
and impressed that standard on all in his employ. Clement, Roberts,
Whitworth, Nasmyth, Seaward, Muir and Lewis worked for him, and
all showed throughout their lives, in a marked way, his influence
upon them. Other workmen, whose names are not so prominent,
spread into the various shops of England the methods and standards
of Maudslay & Field (later Maudslay, Sons & Field) and made
English tool builders the leaders of the world for fifty years.
J. G. Moon, who afterwards became manager of James Watt &
Company of Soho, the successor of Boulton & Watt, was
apprenticed to Maudslay, Sons & Field and gives the following
picture of the shop at the zenith of its prosperity.
There were not more than perhaps a dozen lathes in use there, with cast-iron
box beds such as we now know; but nearly all the lathes had been constructed by
the firm itself and were made without a bed, the poppet or back center and the
slide-rest being supported on a wrought-iron triangular bar, varying in size from,
say, 3-in. to 6-in. side. This bar was supported on cast-iron standards, and
reached from the fixed lathe head to the length required of the “bed.” If the lathes
were self-acting, there were two such triangular bars with the guide screw running
between them. The advantage of these lathes was great, for if a large chuck job
was on hand, the bars could be withdrawn from the fixed head, supported on
standards, and anything that would miss the roof or swing in a pit beneath could
be tackled.
There was one screwing machine or lathe which all apprentices in the vice loft
(as the fitting shop in which the writer was apprenticed was called) had to work
during their curriculum—this was a small double-bar lathe with a guide screw
between. The fixed head was on the right of the operator, and the lathe was
worked by hand by means of a wheel very much like a miniature ship’s steering
wheel. This wheel was about 2-ft. diameter, with handles round the rim, and we
apprentices were put at this machine to develop the muscles of the right arm. The
advantages of having the fixed head on the right (instead of on the left, as in an
ordinary lathe) was that in cutting a right-hand thread the tool receded away from
the start and ran off the end, and thus prevented a “root in,” which might happen if,
whilst pulling at the wheel, you became absorbed in the discussion of the abilities
of a music-hall “star” or other equally interesting topics with a fellow-apprentice.
The writer remembers using a pair of calipers at that time, whose “points” were
about ¹⁄₂ in. wide for measuring over the tops of a thread. These were stamped “J.
Whitworth, 1830,” and formerly belonged to the great screw-thread reformer.
Nearly all the bar lathes were driven by gut bands, and one can remember gut
bands of 1-in. diameter being used.
Most of the planing machines were made and supplied by Joseph Whitworth &
Co., and the tool boxes were of the “Jim Crow” type, which used to make a half-
turn round by means of a cord when the belt was shifted at the end of each stroke,
thus cutting each way. The forerunner of this used to interest the writer—a
machine in the vice loft that was variously called a shaping machine and a planing
machine. It was driven by means of a disc about 3-ft. diameter, with a slot down
the disc for varying the stroke. A connecting rod from the disc to the tool box
completed this portion of the machine. The tool box was supported and kept true
by two cylindrical bars or guides on each side, so that the whole arrangement was
like the crosshead of an engine worked by disc and connecting rod. On the top of
the tool box was fixed a toothed sector of a wheel, and at the end of each stroke
this sector engaged with a rack, and in this way the tool box took a half-turn and
was ready for cutting on the return stroke. The writer understands that it was from
this machine that Whitworth developed his “Jim Crow” tool box.
There was also a huge shaping machine, whose stroke was anything up to
about 6 ft., which was simply a tool box fixed on the end of a large triangular bar of
about 12-in. side with the “V” downwards. To the back of the bar was attached a
rack, and this, gearing with a pinion, gave the motion. It was a great fascination to
watch this ponderous bar with its tool box slowly coming forward out of its casing
and taking immense cuts.
Another machine tool that also used to interest the writer was a machine for
turning the crank pins of very large solid cranks, the crank pins being about 18-in.
to 20-in. diameter, and the crank shafts about 24-in. to 30-in. diameter. These
immense crank shafts used to be set in the center of the machine, and the tool
would travel round the crank pin until the work was completed, the feed being
worked by means of a ratchet actuated by leaden weights falling to and fro as the
machines slowly revolved.[46]
[46] Junior Institution of Engineers, pp. 167-168. London, 1914.
Maudslay was a large man, over 6 feet 2 inches in height, with a

large, round head, a wide forehead, a good-humored face, and keen,
straightforward eyes. His ringing laugh and cordial manner made
friends everywhere and his kindliness and unvarying integrity held
them. It will repay anyone who cares to do so to look up the account
of him as given in the “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” who went
to Maudslay as a young man and worked beside him as his private
assistant. In reading this affectionate account one can easily see
why Maudslay influenced those about him so deeply and why he
raised the standard of his craft. Like Nasmyth and many other great
mechanics, Maudslay became interested in astronomy, and at the
time of his death he was planning to build a 24-inch reflecting
telescope for his own use. He patented but few inventions, and relied
rather upon his reputation and workmanship to protect him. He was
full of quaint maxims and remarks, as true today as then, the
outcome of keen observation and wide experience. He used to say:
“First get a clear notion of what you desire to accomplish and then in
all probability you will succeed in doing it.” “Keep a sharp lookout
upon your material.” “Get rid of every pound of material you can do
without; put to yourself the question, ‘What business has this to be
there?’” “Avoid complexities. Make everything as simple as
possible.”
His shop was the pride of the country, and Nasmyth tells of the
intimate visits of Faraday, Bentham, Brunel, Chantrey the sculptor,
Barton of the Royal Mint, and Bryan Donkin the engineer, who used
to call and chat with him while he worked at his bench.
No better tribute to Maudslay and his influence can be given than
that of Nasmyth, who said that his “useful life was enthusiastically
devoted to the great object of producing perfect workmanship and
machinery; to him we are certainly indebted for the slide-rest and
indirectly so for the vast benefits which have resulted from the
introduction of so powerful an agent in perfecting our machinery and
mechanism generally. The indefatigable care which he took in
inculcating and diffusing among his workmen and mechanical men
generally, sound ideas of practical knowledge and refined views of
constructions, has and ever will continue to identify his name with all
that is noble in the ambition of a lover of mechanical perfection. The
vast results which have sprung from his admirable mind, are his best
monument and eulogium.”[47]
[47] T. Baker: “Elements of Mechanism,” p. 232. Second Edition with
remarks by James Nasmyth. London, 1858-1859.
CHAPTER V
INVENTORS OF THE PLANER
In almost no case is the crediting of invention more difficult than in
that of the planer. Not only was this tool the product of many men but
no single man stands out clearly as Maudslay, for instance, does in
the development of the lathe. The invention of the metal planer has
been claimed in England on behalf of Spring of Aberdeen, James
Fox, George Rennie, Matthew Murray, Joseph Clement and Richard
Roberts. The planer was in use in the United States so early that it
may also have been invented independently in this country, though,
without doubt, later than in England.
With the planer as with the lathe, the French were the pioneers.
Plumier, a French writer on mechanical subjects, published in 1754 a
description of a machine which had been used for some years,
consisting of two parallel bars of wood or iron connected at their
extremities. The article to be planed was fixed between them, and a
frame guided between the same bars was moved lengthwise by a
long screw and carried a tool which took a planing cut from the work.
The machine was intended for ornamenting the handles of knives
and was said by Plumier to have been an English invention. A
planing machine invented in 1751 by Nicholas Forq, a French clock
maker, for the purpose of planing the pump barrels used in the Marly
water works to supply the fountains at Versailles, is shown in Fig. 17.
These pump barrels were made up of wrought iron staves bound
together by hoops. There were quite a number of these barrels from
10 inches to 4 feet in diameter and from 7 feet to 10 feet long. The
illustration, taken from Buchanan’s “Mill Work,” published in 1841,[48]
is not complete, as it lacks the carriage carrying the planing tool
which was not shown on the original drawing. The general
construction of the machine however is quite clear. The built-up
barrel is shown in place. The cutter was carried backward and
forward between two parallel iron bars set horizontally through the
cylinder. Either the tool or the pump barrel must have been given a
rotative feed. Its action was therefore equivalent to planing on
centers, and it is said to have done this fairly large work in a
satisfactory manner.
[48] Buchanan: “Practical Essays on Mill Work and Other Machinery.”
London, 1841. Volume of Plates.
NOTE.—The spots on the photograph were the yellow stains of age on the original
plate
Figure 17. French Planing Machine by Nicholas Forq, 1751
Bentham described a planer in his well-known patent of 1793 and

Bramah in his patent of 1802. Matthew Murray is said to have built
one in 1814 to machine the faces of D-slide valves, which were
originally invented by Murdock in 1786 but improved by Murray in
1802. Richard Roberts built a planer in 1817 which is, without doubt,
the earliest planer now in existence. It is in the South Kensington
Museum in London and a picture of it is given in Fig. 20.[49] It will be
seen that the modern planer design was already beginning to take
shape. The chisel and file marks on the bed and ways indicate that it
was itself made without the use of a planer. It had vertical and
horizontal feeds, an angular adjustment and separate tool-feed for
the head, and a hinged clamp for the tool to allow it to lift on the
return stroke. The table, which was hand-operated through a chain
drive, was 52 inches long by 11 inches wide.
[49] No. 1619. Cat. M. E. Collection, Part II, p. 272.
George Rennie built a planer in 1820 with a movable bed operated

by a screw and furnished with a revolving cutting tool.[50] James Fox
built one in 1821, capable of planing work 10 feet, 6 inches long, 22
inches wide, and 12 inches deep, to plane the bars of lace
machines. Joseph Clement made his first planer in 1820 to plane the
triangular bars of lathes and the sides of weaving looms. Some
years later he built his “great planer,” a remarkable machine from
both a mechanical and a financial standpoint. A very full description
of it was given by Mr. Varley in the “Transactions of the Society of
Arts” in London in 1832,[51] illustrated by a set of copper plates made
from Clement’s own drawings. Clement’s reputation of being the
most expert draftsman of his day is well borne out by these
drawings. In this planer two cutting tools were used, one for the
forward and one for the return stroke. The bed ran on rollers,
mounted on a concrete foundation, which were said to have been so
true that “if you put a piece of paper under one of the rollers it would
stop all the rest.” It was fitted with centers and was used for planing
circular, spiral and conical work as well as flat work. It took in work 6
feet square and was hand-driven. The cutting speed must have been
low, for “the power of one man was sufficient to keep it in motion for
ordinary work, though two were employed to make long and full cuts
both ways.” For more than ten years it was the only one of its size
and it ran for many years night and day on jobbing work, its earnings
forming Clement’s principal income. Smiles says that his charge for
planing was 18 shillings, or $4.32, per square foot, which amounted
to about £10 per day of twelve hours, or, with two shifts, to about
$100 a day.[52] On this basis he must have machined an average of
about 11 square feet in twelve hours.
[50] Buchanan, p. xlii.
[51] Vol. XLIX, p. 157.
[52] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 306. Boston, 1864.
By 1840 the design of the planer had become fairly well settled
and its use general. In America, planers were built by Gay, Silver &
Company of North Chelmsford, Mass., as early as 1831. Pedrick &
Ayer of Philadelphia are also said to have built a planer at about the
same time. The early American tool builders will be taken up in a
later chapter.
Little is known of the personalities and histories of some of these
men, such as Spring of Aberdeen. Spring’s name is mentioned by
Smiles in his “Industrial Biography”[53] as one of the inventors of the
planer, but no further reference is made to him.
[53] p. 223.
James Fox was the founder of a well-known firm of machine-tool

builders in Derby. He was originally a butler, but his mechanical skill
turned him toward the design and building of lace machinery. The
gentleman in whose employ he had served furnished him with the
means of beginning business on his own account, and he soon
obtained work from the great firms of Arkwright and Strutt, the
founders of modern cotton manufacture. His planer, built about 1814,
was used in the manufacture of this machinery. It is described by
Samuel Hall, a former workman under Fox, as follows: “It was
essentially the same in principle as the planing machine now in
general use, although differing in detail. It had a self-acting ratchet
motion for moving the slides of a compound slide-rest, and a self-
acting reversing tackle, consisting of three bevel wheels, one a stud,
one loose on the driving shaft, and another on a socket, with a pinion
on the opposite end of the driving shaft running on the socket. The
other end was the place for the driving pulley. A clutch-box was
placed between the two opposite wheels, which was made to slide

PDF Multiagent Systems Introduction and Coordination Control 1St Edition Magdi S Mahmoud Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PDF Multiagent Systems Introduction and Coordination Control 1St Edition Magdi S Mahmoud Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Multiagent Systems Introduction and Coordination Control 1St Edition Magdi S Mahmoud Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiagent Systems: Introduction and

Coordination Control 1st Edition Magdi

Management Control with Integrated Planning Models and

Coordination, Cooperation, and Control: The Evolution

Power Systems Control and Reliability Electric Power

Ultimate Rust for Systems Programming: Master Core

Natural fiber textile composite engineering 1st Edition

Protective Armor Engineering Design 1st Edition Magdi

Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS 2016

Introduction to Process Control Analysis Mathematical

© 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

and the CRC Press Web site at

3. Distributed Intelligence in Power Systems 69

3.1.8 Simulations results 78

4. Consensus for Heterogeneous Systems with Delays 117

5. Secure Control of Distributed Multiagent Systems 169

6. Advanced Consensus Algorithms 183

7. Cooperative Control of Networked Power Systems 273

8. Dynamic Graphical Games 305

8.1.9 Nash equilibrium solution 317

Magdi S Mahmoud has been a Professor of Engineering since 1984. He is now

Engineering Management, USA since 2012 and an Academic Member of Athens

1.2 Elements of Graph Theory

1.2.1 Basic results

Lemma 1.1 [32]

Lemma 1.2 [16]

1.2.2 Laplacian spectrum of graphs

1.2.3 Properties of adjacency matrix

L(G) = D(G) − A(G) (1.4)

Figure 1.1: Sample graph and Laplacian

Moreover, if G has a globally reachable node, H + H ∗ is positive deﬁnite.

Proof 1.1 Let V = [ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζn ] be a unitary matrix where ζi ∈ Cn (i = 1, . . . , n)

Notice that if G is balanced, it implies that ζ1∗ L = 0. Then we have

Furthermore, if G has a globally reachable node, then L+LT is positive semi-deﬁnite,

As closing remarks, the Laplacian matrix satisﬁes the property L = CCT . It is

Moreover, given a connected graph, ΨG (x) = 0 if and only if xi = x j , ∀i, j.

Remark 1.2 Consider a simple digraph G = (V, E, A) with V = {v1 , v2 , ..., vn } a

i − th column sum of A, dout (vi ) = nj=1 ai j . The node of a digraph is balanced if

1.2.4 Nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems

In addition to analyzing the conditions on the network topology, such that

dx(t) = f (x(t))dt + D(x(t))dw(t), x(t0 )a.s. = x0 ,t ≥ t0, (1.10)

|| f (x) − f (y)|| + ||D(x) − D(y)||F ≤ L||x − y||, x, y ∈ D (1.11)

and the growth restriction condition

|| f (x)||2 + ||D(x)||2F ≤ L2 (1 + ||x||2 ), x ∈ D, (1.12)

for some Lipschitz constant L > 0.

Ex0 [V (x(t))] −V (x0 )

x ∈ D and the inﬁnitesimal generator L of x(t),t ≥ 0, can be characterised by

α1 (||x||) ≤ V (x) ≤ α2 (||x||), x ∈ Rn , (1.15)

1.2.5 Complex dynamical systems

� Complex networks. The dynamics are typically represented as

ẋi (t) = ui (t), i = 1, ..., n, (1.21)

with control input

is a special case of (1.18) with f = 0.

ẋ = ui cosθi , ẏ = ui sinθi , θ̇i = ωi , i = 1, 2, ..., N, (1.23)

Mi (qi )q̈i +Ci (qi , q̇i )q̇i + gi (qi ) = τi , i = 1, 2, ..., N, (1.24)

where qi ∈ R p is the vector of generalized coordinates, Mi (qi ) ∈ R p×p is

1. Different Asymptotic States (Nonlinear Dynamics versus Linear Dynam