Download PDF
Research Article  |  Open Access  |  29 Nov 2024

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Views: 32 |  Downloads: 7 |  Cited:  0
Complex Eng Syst 2024;4:23.
10.20517/ces.2024.67 |  © The Author(s) 2024.
Author Information
Article Notes
Cite This Article

Abstract

In this study, the robust fault-tolerant control problem for T-S fuzzy chaotic systems is studied with the use of a proportional integral observer. Particularly, to accurately consider the real-world scenario, the chaotic system model incorporates the parameter uncertainties, input delay and external disruptions. Furthermore, a fuzzy-based observer is put forward based on analyzed system output with the intent of estimating the states of undertaken chaotic systems. Herein, the system output is susceptible to randomly occurring deception attacks and adheres to the Bernoulli distribution. Precisely, the consideration of deception attacks in the output channel allows for more secure state estimation in a networked setting. Subsequently, we develop a proportional integral observer-based fault-tolerant control that allows for the attainment of goals despite faults and delays in the input channel. Moreover, by setting up the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional and blending it with Wirtinger's integral inequalities, we put together adequate conditions that ensure the asymptotic stability of the closed-loop systems by establishing conditions in the form of linear matrix inequalities. In the follow-up, based on the established matrix inequalities, the exact procedure for computing the gain matrices is outlined. As a last step, we put forward numerical simulation outcomes that exhibit the viability of the theoretical findings.

Keywords

Chaotic systems, T-S fuzzy technique, fault-tolerant control, proportional-integral observer approach, deception attacks, extended dissipativity

1. INTRODUCTION

Chaos is an inherent nonlinear behavior with significant avenues in various real-world uses, including encrypted communication, processing data, identifying patterns, and chemical processes [1, 2]. As a result, there has been a heightened focus on chaos-associated nonlinear behavior in the fields of science and technology. Chaotic systems exhibit unexpected and inconsistent characteristics attributed to initial-value sensitivities, topological temporary nature, pseudo-randomness and the absence of periodicity which can potentially result in functionality degradation or system instability [3-5]. Consequently, chaos control has emerged as an important topic across numerous domains. Numerous intriguing control methodologies have been developed to examine chaotic systems to date, such as feedback control [6], sliding mode control [7], finite-time control [8], and so on. Given these developments and their impact on chaotic systems, this topic has gained our attention.

Additionally, various causes, including unforeseen alterations in operational circumstances, dynamic modifications in system boundaries and behavioral shifts in physical components, might render the nonlinear characteristics of chaotic systems prevalent. Furthermore, when the system is subjected to the nonlinear phenomenon, the control mechanism that was designed for chaotic systems is incapable of producing favorable dynamic outcomes for chaotic systems. For the purpose of resolving the problem discussed above, the concept of fuzzy logic [9] is utilized in this investigation in order to effectively address the nonlinear characteristics of the chaotic system. In detail, the Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) fuzzy model captured growing attention from researchers owing to its outstanding ability to represent intricate dynamical processes. In detail, the T-S fuzzy model employs a collection of fuzzy IF-THEN constraints to depict local linear input-output relationships within a nonlinear system. Upon account of this attribute, the T-S fuzzy model is advantageous for chaotic system analysis and controller design [10]. Moreover, it has been disclosed that many chaotic systems, including Rosler system, Lorenz system and Chua's system, can be precisely represented by T-S fuzzy models [11-14]. Owing to these advantageous attributes, fuzzy model-based control has been extensively utilized in chaotic systems, prompting us to undertake this research.

Besides, control systems are prone to actuator failures, which could substantially affect system operations and, in extreme cases, can cause system instability [15]. Consequently, to preserve the ideal stability and proper operation, it is crucial to take the adverse outcomes of actuator flaws into account while crafting control systems [16]. This premise lends conception to a fault-tolerant control framework for dynamical systems [17]. To put it another way, fault-tolerant control deals with the failed actuators and restores system performance for ensuring the system runs consistently. The beneficial features of fault-tolerant control have prompted substantial research efforts [18, 19]. In addition to the actuator fault, if the signal transmission times between the actuator and sensor are prolonged then the control input channel could experience delay and result in unexpected degradation in performance, leading to system instability [20-22]. Consequently, while creating a control protocol, it is relevant and even necessary to consider the input delay [23, 24]. Similarly, when there is a discrepancy between the real system and its mathematical model, the performance of the system is likely to suffer [25]. Because of this, embracing uncertainty in system design is important from a theoretical and practical standpoint [26, 27]. Furthermore, as a result of unpredictable variables, the external disruptions are pervasive [28, 29]. In order to mitigate these impacts, the extended dissipativity concept is used, which reduces the impact of the disturbance in the system model [30-32]. Thus, it is theoretically and practically significant to include parameter uncertainties, actuator faults, external disturbances and input delay in T-S fuzzy chaotic systems.

Meanwhile, estimating the system state in practice gets extremely hard. To address this pressing issue, the researchers have proposed an observer-based state estimation method [33]. It should be noted that the mathematical model of the system being studied determines the structure of the observer. The accuracy of the state estimate is therefore dependent on the mathematical model used and the characteristics of the data that are used. To that end, the proportional integral observer (PIO) has garnered a lot of interest in many real-world systems, since the application of PIO is involved in manufacturing, power circuits, and network communications [34]. The PIO improves the estimate of the system states and boosts the system resiliency which is done by including the proportional and integral feedback term with regard to the output estimation error. As a consequence, the PIO technique has gained a lot of traction among academics [35-37]. It should be noted that the PIO is set up using the system's output signal but in a networked environment, it might be impacted by cyberattacks. Consequently, the observer design should take into account aftermath impacts of cyber attacks in order to obtain a secure estimate of the system states [38, 39]. As a consequence of this notion, numerous intriguing findings on secure state estimation for various dynamical systems have been reported in the literature [40-49]. Notwithstanding these many initiatives, the analysis of T-S fuzzy chaotic systems in networked conditions subject to cyber attack scenarios remains an uncharted area and needs exploration.

Driven by above-discussed factors and findings, this study delves into the topic of PIO-based fault-tolerant control for T-S fuzzy chaotic systems that are susceptible to various factors. Additionally, the following is a summary of the research achievements presented in this article:

● A PIO-based fault-tolerant control law is configured for the T-S fuzzy chaotic systems in the case of external disturbances, actuator faults, deception attacks and input delays.

● In detail, with the intent of reconstructing the states of the undertaken model, a PIO is developed with the fuzzy technique. Additionally, to strengthen the model's information security, deception attacks are considered.

● Subsequently, by making use of the estimation information procured from the designed observer along with the feedback control technique, a PIO-based control law is developed, in which actuator faults and input delays are considered to precisely mimic the actual situations.

● By configuring the suitable Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate, a set of adequate constraints is established in the frame of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) which ensures the asymptotic stability of the investigated system.

At the end of this study, numerical examples accompanied by the simulation findings are offered which substantiate the effectiveness and applicability of the offered control mechanism and the established theoretical findings.

The subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the mathematical modeling of the undertaken model and control design and offers the preliminaries. Section 3 presents the adequate constraints that ensure the primary intent of this study. The potential of the proposed findings is summarized in Section 4 through a simulation example. Finally, Section 5 provides a conclusion of our study, presenting insights and emphasizing the significant findings obtained from our investigation.

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1. Chaotic system description

Consider a class of T-S fuzzy chaotic fuzzy systems subject to multiple vulnerable factors as follows:

rule for the undertaken plant $$ i $$: IF $$ \phi_1(t) $$ is $$ \Phi_1^{i} $$ and $$ \ldots $$ and $$ \phi_h(t) $$ is $$ \Phi_h^{i} $$, THEN

$$ \begin{cases} \dot{x}(t)=(\mathcal{A}_{i}+\Delta\mathcal{A}_{i}(t)){x}(t)+\mathcal{B}_{i}u^f(t-\wp(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t),\ \ i\in\omega=\{1,2,3,\ldots,l\}\\ y(t)=\mathcal{C}_{i}{x}(t), \end{cases} $$

where $$ \phi_1(t),\phi_2(t),\ldots, \phi_h(t) $$ are the premise variables, and $$ \Phi_1^{i} $$, $$ \Phi_2^{i} $$, $$ \Phi_3^{i} $$, $$ \ldots $$, $$ \Phi_h^{i} $$ are the fuzzy sets; $$ l $$ is the number of fuzzy rules; $$ x(t)\in\mathcal{R}^n $$ represents the state vector; $$ u^f(t)\in \mathcal{R}^m $$ signifies the control input; $$ y(t)\in \mathcal{R}^q $$ denotes the measured output vector of the system; $$ \wp(t) $$ indicates the time-varying delay that occurs in the control channel which satisfies $$ 0 \leq \wp(t) \leq \bar{\wp} $$ and $$ \dot{\wp}(t) \leq \varrho $$, where $$ \varrho< 1 $$; $$ w(t)\in \mathcal{R}^w $$ indicates the external disturbance; $$ \mathcal{A}_{i} $$, $$ \mathcal{B}_{i} $$, $$ \mathcal{D}_{i} $$, $$ \mathcal{C}_{i} $$ are the known constant matrices. Moreover, $$ \Delta\mathcal{A}_{i}(t) $$ signifies the parameter uncertainty which has the following layout $$ \Delta\mathcal{A}_{i}(t)=\mathfrak{B}_i\mathfrak{F}_i(t)\mathfrak{N}_i $$, and $$ \mathfrak{F}^T_i(t)\mathfrak{F}_i(t)\leq I $$ is a time-varying matrix that is unknown.

Through the utilization of fuzzy blending techniques, we can attain the underneath the fuzzy chaotic system (1) as

$$ \begin{cases} \dot{x}(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big((\mathcal{A}_{i}+\Delta\mathcal{A}_{i}(t)){x}(t)+\mathcal{B}_{i}u^f(t-\wp(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t)\big)\\ y(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))(\mathcal{C}_{i}{x}(t)), \end{cases} $$

where $$ \phi(t)=\left[\phi_1(t),\phi_2(t),\ldots,\phi_h(t)\right] $$, $$ 𝒷_{i}(\phi(t)) $$ represents the normalized membership function satisfying:

$$ 𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))=\frac{\prod\limits_{j=1}^{h}\Phi_j^{i}(\phi_j(t))}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{h}\Phi_j^{i}(\phi_j(t))}\geq 0,\ \ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{l} 𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))=1, $$

and $$ \Phi_j^{i}(\phi_j(t)) $$ indicates the grade of membership of $$ \phi_j(t) $$ in $$ \Phi_j^{i} $$.

2.2. Deception attack model

In the current investigation, the deception attack is taken into account in the measurement output channel. The mathematical configuration of the deception attack is laid out below:

$$ {y}_d(t)=(1-\theta(t)){y}(t)+\theta(t)\zeta(y(t)), $$

where $$ \theta(t)\in\{0, 1\} $$ indicates the occurring probability of deception attacks, and $$ \zeta(y(t)) $$ illustrates the deceptive signal sent out by the attacker. Further, $$ \theta(t) $$ follows the Bernoulli distribution and it has ensuing probability constraints: $$ Pr\{\theta(t)=1\}=\mathbb{E}\{\theta(t)\}=\bar{v} $$, $$ Pr\{\theta(t)=0\}=1-\mathbb{E}\{\theta(t)\}=1-\bar{v} $$, $$ \bar{v}\in\left[0,1\right] $$ is pre-defined scalar.

2.3. Description of PIO system

In practice, directly measuring the system state (2) is not an easy task. In order to address this issue, a PIO system is developed to estimate the states of the model. Moreover, the observer system is articulated as follows:

$$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} \dot{\hat{x}}(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big(\mathcal{A}_{i}\hat{x}(t)+\mathcal{B}_{i}u^f(t-\wp(t))+\mathcal{L}_{i}(y_d(t)-\hat{y}(t))+\mathcal{B}_{i}x_p(t)\big),\\ \hat{y}(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))(\mathcal{C}_{i}\hat{x}(t)),\\ \dot{{x}_p}(t)=-x_p(t)+\mathcal{L}_{pi}(y_d(t)-\hat{y}(t)) \end{cases} \end{align} $$

where $$ \hat{x}(t)\in\mathcal{R}^n $$ signifies the estimated states of $$ x(t) $$ and $$ \hat{y}(t)\in \mathcal{R}^q $$ epitomize the estimated output of $$ y(t) $$; $$ L_i $$ and $$ \mathcal{L}_{pi} $$ indicates the proportional and integral gain matrices of the designed observer, which will be reckoned in the later portion of this investigation.

2.4. PIO-based control scheme configuration with delay

Rule for the designed control law $$ j $$: IF $$ \phi_1(t) $$ is $$ \Phi_1^{j} $$ and $$ \ldots $$ and $$ \phi_h(t) $$ is $$ \Phi_h^{j} $$, THEN

By leveraging the estimation data obtained from the established observer configuration and the feedback mechanism, a control rule is provided which includes input delay to align closer with the real-world circumstances. The dynamic configuration of the control law is given below:

$$ u(t-\wp(t))=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}𝒷_{j}(\phi(t))\mathcal{K}_j\ \hat{x}(τ-\wp(t)), $$

where $$ \mathcal{K}_j $$ is the gain matrices of the controller, which will be determined later.

Apart from this, we consider the controller with faulty actuator model which is defined by $$ u^f (t) = \mathfrak{G}_f u(t) $$. In detail, $$ \mathfrak{G}_f = \mbox{diag}\{\mathtt{g}_1, \mathtt{g}_2,\ldots, \mathtt{g}_m\} $$, $$ \mathtt{g}_s $$$$ (s =1,2,\ldots, m) $$ is the fault factor of the $$ s^{th} $$ actuator that is assumed to lie in the interval $$ [\underline{\mathtt{g}}_s, \overline{\mathtt{g}}_s] $$ with $$ 0 < \underline{\mathtt{g}_s} \leq \mathtt{g}_s \leq \overline{\mathtt{g}_s} \leq 1 $$. Furthermore, the fault matrix $$ \mathfrak{G}_f $$ is represented as $$ \mathfrak{G}_f =\mathfrak{G}_0+\mathfrak{G}_1\Sigma $$, where $$ \mathfrak{G}_0 = \frac{\underline{\mathfrak{G}}+\overline{\mathfrak{G}}}{2} $$, $$ \mathfrak{G}_1 = \frac{\overline{\mathfrak{G}}-\underline{\mathfrak{G}}}{2} $$ with $$ \overline{\mathfrak{G}}_f =\mbox{diag}\{\overline{\mathtt{g}}_1,\overline{\mathtt{g}}_2,\ldots,\overline{\mathtt{g}}_m\} $$, $$ \underline{\mathfrak{G}}_f =\mbox{diag}\{\underline{\mathtt{g}}_1, \underline{\mathtt{g}}_2,\ldots, \underline{\mathtt{g}}_m\} $$ and $$ 0 <\Sigma =\mbox{diag}\{\pi_1, \pi_2,\ldots, \pi_m\} \leq I $$. Then, in accordance with (5), the control set-up with the actuator fault model can be written as follows:

$$ u^f(t-\wp(t))=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}𝒷_{j}(\phi(t))\ (\mathfrak{G}_0+\mathfrak{G}_1\Sigma)\mathcal{K}_j\ \hat{x}(τ-\wp(t)). $$

Further, by defining the error system $$ \mathfrak{e}(t) $$ as $$ \mathfrak{e}(t)=x(t)-\hat{x}(t) $$ and making use of relations (3)-(6), the following set-up of a closed-loop system can be obtained.

$$ \begin{align} \dot{x}(t)=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}𝒷_{j}(\phi(t))\big((\mathcal{A}_{i}+\Delta \mathcal{A}_i(t)){x}(t)+\mathcal{B}_{i}(\mathfrak{G}_0+\mathfrak{G}_1\Sigma)\mathcal{K}_j\ \hat{x}(τ-\wp(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t)\big), \end{align} $$

$$ \begin{align} \mathfrak{e}(t)=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{j}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big(\mathcal{A}_{i}{\mathfrak{e}}(t)+\Delta\mathcal{A}_{i}(t)x(t)-\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{e}(t)+\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{C}_i x(t)-\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_i\zeta(y(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t))-\mathcal{B}_ix_p(t), \\ \dot{{x}_p}(t)=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big(-x_p(t)+\mathcal{L}_{pi}\mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{e}(t)-\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_{pi}\mathcal{C}_ix(t)+\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_{pi}f(y(t))\big). \end{align} $$

Assumption 1For the given real symmetric matrices $$ \kappa_1 $$, $$ \kappa_2 $$, $$ \kappa_3 $$ and $$ \kappa_4 $$, the following constraints are satisfied:

$$ 1) \kappa_1\leq 0,\ \kappa_3> 0 \ \ \mathit{\mbox{and}}\ \ \kappa_4\geq 0 $$;

$$ 2) (\|\kappa_1\|+\|\kappa_2\|)\kappa_4= 0 $$.

Assumption 2The nonlinear function $$ {f}(y(t)) $$ satisfies the following constraint

$$ ||{f}(y(t))||^2 \leq |\mathcal{H}y(t)|^2 $$

where $$ \mathcal{H} $$ is the constant matrix that denotes the upper bound of nonlinear function.

Definition 1[28] For the given matrices $$ \kappa_1 $$, $$ \kappa_2 $$, $$ \kappa_3 $$ and $$ \kappa_4 $$ with Assumption 1, the undertaken system (1) with the controller (6) is extended dissipative if the following inequality holds for $$ T_f \geq 0 $$:

$$ \mathbb{E}\left\lbrace\int_{0}^{T_f} \zeta(t) dt\right\rbrace-\sup\limits_{0\leq t \leq T_f} \mathbb{E}\left\lbrace y^T(t)\kappa_4 y(t) \right\rbrace\geq \gamma, $$

where$$ \zeta(t)=y^T(t)\kappa_1 y(t)+y^T(t)\kappa_2 w(t)+w^T(t)\kappa_3 w(t). $$

Lemma 1[50] For any positive definite matrix $$ \mathcal{Z} $$, given scalars $$ u $$ and $$ v $$ satisfying $$ u<v $$, the condition given below is satisfied for all continuously differentiable function $$ \xi:\left[u,v\right]\rightarrow \mathcal{R}^{\alpha}: $$

$$ \begin{align*} (u-v)\int\limits _{u}^{v}\xi^T(\mathtt{s}) \mathcal{Z} \xi(\mathtt{s}) d\mathtt{s}\geq \left[\begin{array}{cccccc} \int\limits^{v}_{u}\xi(k)dk\\ \int\limits^{v}_{u}dk\int\limits^{s}_{u}\xi(s)ds\\ \int\limits^{v}_{u}dk \int\limits^{s}_{u}ds \int\limits^{r}_{u}\xi(r)dr \end{array}\right]^T\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 9\mathcal{Z} & -\frac{36}{u-v}\mathcal{Z} & \frac{60}{(u-v)^2}\mathcal{Z}\\ \ast & \frac{192}{(u-v)^2}\mathcal{Z} & -\frac{360}{(u-v)^3}\mathcal{Z}\\ \ast & \ast & \frac{720}{(u-v)^4}\mathcal{Z} \end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{cccccc} \int\limits^{v}_{u}\xi(k)dk\\ \int\limits^{v}_{u}dk\int\limits^{s}_{u}\xi(s)ds\\ \int\limits^{v}_{u}dk \int\limits^{s}_{u}ds \int\limits^{r}_{u}\xi(r)dr \end{array}\right]. \end{align*} $$

3. MAINRESULTS

In this section, we focus on deriving sufficient conditions for ascertaining the asymptotic stability of the considered system by configuring Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional and blending it with the extended Wirtinger's integral inequality.

Theorem 1For given positive scalars $$ \bar{\wp} $$, $$ \bar{v} $$, $$ \varrho $$, actuator fault matrix $$ \mathfrak{G}_f $$ and controller gain matrices $$ \mathcal{K}_j $$, $$ \mathcal{L}_i $$, $$ \mathcal{L}_{pi} $$, system (7) is asymptotically stable, if there exist apt dimension matrices $$ \mathcal{U}_i> 0 $$, $$ (i=1,2,3) $$, $$ \mathcal{W}_g> 0 $$$$ (g=1,2,3,4) $$, $$ \check{\mathcal{W}}_{1} $$ and $$ \check{\mathcal{W}}_{2}>0 $$, such that the following condition is satisfied:

$$ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}\left[\Lambda_{ij}\right]_{15\times 15}< 0, $$

where $$ {\Lambda}_{1,1}=sym(\mathcal{U}_{1i}\mathcal{A}_i)+\mathcal{W}_{1}+\mathcal{W}_{2}+\bar{\wp}^2\check{\mathcal{W}}_{1}+\mathcal{C}^T\mathcal{H}^T\mathcal{H}\mathcal{C},\ $$$$ {\Lambda}_{1,2}=(\bar{v}\mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{C}_i)^T,\ {\Lambda}_{1,3}=\bar{v}\mathcal{C}_i^T\mathcal{L}_{pi}^T\mathcal{U}_{3i}^T,\ {\Lambda}_{1,5}=\mathcal{U}_{1i} \mathcal{B}_{i}\mathfrak{G}_f\mathcal{K}_j,$$$$\ {\Lambda}_{1,7}=-\mathcal{U}_{1i} \mathcal{B}_{i}\mathfrak{G}_f\mathcal{K}_j,\ {\Lambda}_{1,9}= \mathcal{U}_{1i}D_i,\ {\Lambda}_{2,2}=sym(\mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathcal{A}_i- \mathcal{L}_i \mathcal{C}_i)+{\mathcal{W}}_{3}+{\mathcal{W}}_{4}+\bar{\wp}^2\check{\mathcal{W}}_2,$$$$\ {\Lambda}_{2,3}=-\mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathcal{B}_i+\mathcal{C}_i^T\mathcal{L}_{pi}^T\mathcal{U}_{3i}^T ,\ {\Lambda}_{2,8}=-\bar{v} \mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathcal{L}_{i},\ {\Lambda}_{2,9}= \mathcal{U}_{2i}D_i,\ {\Lambda}_{3,3}=-sym(\mathcal{U}_{3i}),$$$$\ {\Lambda}_{3,8}=\bar{v}\mathcal{U}_{3i}\mathcal{L}_{pi}, {\Lambda}_{4,4}=-{\mathcal{W}}_{1},\ {\Lambda}_{5,5}=-(1-\varrho){\mathcal{W}}_{2},\ {\Lambda}_{6,6}=-{\mathcal{W}}_{3},$$$$\, {\Lambda}_{7,7}=-(1-\varrho){\mathcal{W}}_{4},\ {\Lambda}_{8,8}=-I,\ {\Lambda}_{9,9}=-I,\ {\Lambda}_{10,10}=-9\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,\ {\Lambda}_{10,11}= \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,\ {\Lambda}_{10,12}= -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,$$$$\ {\Lambda}_{11,11} -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,\ {\Lambda}_{11,12}= \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,$$$$\ {\Lambda}_{12,12}= -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1,\ {\Lambda}_{13,13}=-9\check{\mathcal{W}}_2,\ {\Lambda}_{13,14}= \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2,\ {\Lambda}_{13,15}= -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2,\ {\Lambda}_{14,14} -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2,\ {\Lambda}_{14,15}\; =\; \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2$$ and $$ {\Lambda}_{15,15}= -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2. $$

Proof 1Let us construct the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional for systems (7)-(8) in the following structure:

$$ \begin{align} \mathcal{V}(t) =& \sum_{a=1}^{3}\mathcal{V}_a(t), \end{align} $$

where

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{V}_1(t) =& x^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{1i}x(t)+\mathfrak{e}^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathfrak{e}(t)+x_p^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{3i} x_p(t),\\ \mathcal{V}_2(t) =& \int \limits_{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ}x^T(\mathtt{m}) {\mathcal{W}}_{1} x(\mathtt{m}) d\mathtt{m}+\int \limits_{τ-\wp(t)}^{τ}{x}^T(\mathtt{s}) {\mathcal{W}}_{2} {x}(\mathtt{s}) d\mathtt{s}+\int \limits_{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ}\mathfrak{e}^T(\mathtt{m}) {\mathcal{W}}_{3} \mathfrak{e}(\mathtt{m}) d\mathtt{m}+\int \limits_{τ-\wp(t)}^{τ}\mathfrak{e}^T(\mathtt{s}) {\mathcal{W}}_{4} \mathfrak{e}(\mathtt{s}) d\mathtt{s},\\ \mathcal{V}_3(t) =& \bar{\wp}\int\limits _{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ}\int\limits ^{ τ}_{s}{{x}}^T(\mathtt{v}) \check{\mathcal{W}}_{1} {{x}}(\mathtt{v}) d\mathtt{v}d\mathtt{s}+\bar{\wp}\int\limits _{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ}\int\limits ^{ τ}_{s}{\mathfrak{e}}^T(\mathtt{v}) \check{\mathcal{W}}_{2} {\mathfrak{e}}(\mathtt{v}) d\mathtt{v}d\mathtt{s}. \end{align*} $$

Then, by taking the derivative of (11) and applying mathematical expectation along with the solutions from (7)-(8), we get

$$ \begin{align} \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}_1(t)\}=&x^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{1i}\dot{x}(t)+\dot{x}^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{1i}x(t)+\mathfrak{e}^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{2i}\dot{\mathfrak{e}}(t)+\dot{\mathfrak{e}}^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{2i}\mathfrak{e}(t)+x_p^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{3i} \dot{x}_p(t)+\dot{x}_p^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{3i} x_p(t)\\ =&2x^T(t)\mathcal{U}_i\left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}𝒷_{j}(\phi(t))\big(\mathcal{A}_{i}{x}(t)+\mathcal{B}_{i}\mathfrak{G}_f\mathcal{K}_j\ \hat{x}(τ-\wp(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t)\big)\right]\\ &+2\mathfrak{e}^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{2i}\left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{j}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big(\mathcal{A}_{i}{\mathfrak{e}}(t)-\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{e}(t)+\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{C}_i x(t)-\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_i\zeta(y(t))+\mathcal{D}_{i}w(t))-\mathcal{B}_ix_p(t)\right]\\ &+2x_p^T\mathcal{U}_{3i}\left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}𝒷_{i}(\phi(t))\big(-x_p(t)+\mathcal{L}_{pi}\mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{e}(t)-\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_{pi}\mathcal{C}_ix(t)+\theta(t)\mathcal{L}_{pi}\zeta(y(t))\big) \right] \end{align} $$

$$ \begin{align} \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}_2(t)\}=&{x}^T(t)\mathcal{W}_{1} {x}(t)-{x}^T(τ-\bar{\wp})\mathcal{W}_{1}{x}(τ-\bar{\wp})+{x}^T(t)\mathcal{W}_{2} {x}(t)-(1-\varrho){x}^T(τ-\wp(t))\mathcal{W}_{2}{x}(τ-\wp(t))\\ &+\mathfrak{e}^T(t)\mathcal{W}_{3} \mathfrak{e}(t)-\mathfrak{e}^T(τ-\bar{\wp})\mathcal{W}_{3}\mathfrak{e}(τ-\bar{\wp})+\mathfrak{e}^T(t)\mathcal{W}_{4} \mathfrak{e}(t)-(1-\varrho)\mathfrak{e}^T(τ-\wp(t))\mathcal{W}_{4}\mathfrak{e}(τ-\wp(t)), \end{align} $$

$$ \begin{align} \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}_3(t)\}=&\bar{\wp}^2 {{x}}^T(t) \breve{\mathcal{W}}_{1} {{x}}(t)+\bar{\wp}^2 {\mathfrak{e}}^T(t) \breve{\mathcal{W}}_{2} {\mathfrak{e}}(t)-{\bar{\wp}\int\limits_{τ-\bar{\wp}}^{τ}{{x}}^T(\mathtt{s}) \breve{\mathcal{W}}_{1} {{x}}(\mathtt{s}) d\mathtt{s}}-\bar{\wp}\int\limits _{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ}{\mathfrak{e}}^T(\mathtt{s}) \breve{\mathcal{W}}_{2} {\mathfrak{e}}(\mathtt{s})d\mathtt{s} . \end{align} $$

Now, redrafting the integral term in inequality (14) by making use of Lemma 1, we get

$$ \begin{align} -\bar{\wp}\int\limits _{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ} {x}^T(t)\check{\mathcal{W}}_1{x}(t) d(t) \leq \Psi^T(t) \left[\begin{array}{ccccc} -9\check{\mathcal{W}}_1 & \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1 & -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1\\ * & -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1 & \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1\\ * & * & -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_1 \end{array}\right]\Psi(t), \end{align} $$

$$ \begin{align} -\bar{\wp}\int\limits _{τ -\bar{\wp}}^{τ} {\mathfrak{e}}^T(t)\check{\mathcal{W}}_2{\mathfrak{e}}(t) d(t) \leq \hat{\Psi}^T(t) \left[\begin{array}{ccccc} -9\check{\mathcal{W}}_2 & \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2 & -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2\\ * & -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2 & \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2\\ * & * & -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\check{\mathcal{W}}_2 \end{array}\right]\hat{\Psi}(t), \end{align} $$

$$ \Psi^T(t)=\left[\int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {x}^T(s) ds\ \ \ \int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}}ds\int\limits^{s}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {x}^T(v) dv\ \ \ \int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}}ds\int\limits^{s}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} dv \int\limits^{v}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {x}^T(u)du\right] $$ and

$$ \hat{\Psi}^T(t)=\left[\int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {\mathfrak{e}}^T(s) ds\ \ \ \int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}}ds\int\limits^{s}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {\mathfrak{e}}^T(v) dv\ \ \ \int\limits^{τ}_{τ -\bar{\wp}}ds\int\limits^{s}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} dv \int\limits^{v}_{τ -\bar{\wp}} {\mathfrak{e}}^T(u)du\right] $$.

Moreover, in light of the presumption on deception attack function $$ \zeta (y(t)) $$ on (3), the ensuing inequality is attained:

$$ \begin{equation} x^T(t)\mathcal{C}^T\mathcal{H}^T\mathcal{H}\mathcal{C}x(t)-\zeta^T(y(t))\zeta(y(t))\geq0. \end{equation} $$

Further, by combining (12)-(17), we end up with the hereunder relation:

$$ \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}(t)-w^T(t)w(t)\}\leq\pi^T(t){\bigg[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}𝒷_{j}(\phi(t))\Lambda_{i,j}\bigg]}\pi(t) \end{equation} $$

where $$ \pi^T(t)=\big[ x^T(t) \ \ \mathfrak{e}^T(t) \ \ x^T_p(t) \ \ x^T(τ-\bar{\wp}) \ \ x^T(τ-\wp(t)) \ \ \mathfrak{e}^T(τ-\bar{\wp}) \ \ \mathfrak{e}^T(τ-\wp(t)) \ \ \zeta^T(y(t)) \ w^T(t) \ \ \Psi^T(t)\ \ \hat{\Psi}^T(t)\big] $$ and $$ \Lambda_{i,j} $$ is defined in statement of theorem. Thereafter, if the constraint (10) holds, then in light of the theory of Lyapunov's stability, it is obvious that the closed-loop system (7)-(8) is asymptotically stable. This completes the proof of the theorem.

Next, in the following theorem, the delay-dependent conditions are derived for the uncertain chaotic system given in (1) under the known actuator fault (6) and unknown gain. Added to this, adequate conditions are configured in the form of matrix inequalities with the extended dissipativity theory.

Theorem 2Let $$ \bar{\wp} $$, $$ {v} $$, $$ \varrho $$, $$ \varepsilon $$, $$ \gamma $$ be positive scalars and system (1) with known actuator fault (6) is asymptotically stable with extended dissipativity, if there exist scalars $$ \mu $$, $$ \vartheta_1 $$, $$ \vartheta_2 $$ and positive definite matrices $$ \mathfrak{X}_{mi}> 0 $$, $$ (m=1,2,3) $$, $$ \hat{\mathcal{W}}_g> 0 $$$$ (g=1,2,3,4) $$, $$ \hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{1} $$ and $$ \hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{2}>0 $$ such that the following conditions are met:

$$ \begin{align} \left[\begin{array}{cccc} -\mu I & \mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{X}_{2i}-\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}\mathcal{C}_i\\ \ast & - I \end{array} \right]< 0, \end{align} $$

$$ \begin{align} \Theta_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {{\Pi}_{ij}}_{15\times 15} & \gimel & \Xi_1 & \varepsilon \Xi_2^T & \Xi_3 & \varepsilon \Xi_4^T & \Xi_5^T\\ \ast & -I & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \ast & \ast & -\varepsilon I & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \ast & \ast & \ast & -\varepsilon I & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \ast &\ast & \ast &\ast &-\varepsilon I & 0 & 0\\ \ast & \ast & \ast &\ast &\ast & -\varepsilon I & 0\\ \ast & \ast & \ast &\ast &\ast & 0 & -I \end{array}\right]< 0, \end{align} $$

where $${\Pi}_{1,1}=sym(\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{X}_{1i})+\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{1}+\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{2}+\bar{\wp}^2\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{1},\ {\Pi}_{1,2}=\bar{v} \mathcal{C}_i^T \mathcal{L}_{oi}^T,\ {\Pi}_{1,3}=\bar{v}\mathcal{C}_i^T\mathcal{L}_{pi}^T,\ {\Pi}_{1,4}=\mathcal{B}_{i}\mathfrak{G}_f\mathcal{Y}_j,\ {\Pi}_{1,6}=-\delta_1 \mathcal{B}_{i}\mathfrak{G}_f\mathcal{Y}_j,$$$$\ {\Pi}_{1,9}= D_i-\kappa_2 \mathcal{C}_i^T,\ {\Pi}_{2,2}=\delta_1 sym(\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{X}_{2i})- \delta_1\mathcal{L}_{oi} \mathcal{C}_i+\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{3}+\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{4}+\bar{\wp}^2\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{2},\ {\Pi}_{2,3}=-\delta_2 \mathcal{B}_i\mathcal{X}_{2i}+\delta_1\mathcal{C}_i^T\mathcal{L}_{si}^T,\ {\Pi}_{2,8}=\bar{v}I,\ {\Pi}_{2,9}= \mathcal{D}_{i},$$$$\ {\Pi}_{3,3}=\delta_2 sym(\mathcal{M}_p\mathcal{X}_{3i}), {\Pi}_{3,8}=\bar{v}I,$$$$\ {\Pi}_{4,4}=-\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{1},\ {\Pi}_{5,5}=-(1-\varrho)\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{2},$$$$\ {\Pi}_{6,6}=-\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{3},\, {\Pi}_{7,7}=-(1-\varrho)\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{4},\ {\Pi}_{8,8}=-I,\ {\Pi}_{9,9}=-\kappa_3I,\ {\Pi}_{10,10}=-9\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,\ {\Pi}_{10,11}= \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,\ {\Pi}_{10,12}= -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,\ {\Pi}_{11,11} -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,$$$$\ {\Pi}_{11,12}= \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,\ {\Pi}_{12,12}= -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_1,\ {\Pi}_{13,13}=-9\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2,\ {\Pi}_{13,14}= \frac{36}{\bar{\wp}}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2,$$$$ \ {\Pi}_{13,15}= -\frac{60}{\bar{\wp}^2}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2,\ {\Pi}_{14,14} -\frac{192}{\bar{\wp}^2}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2,\ {\Pi}_{14,15}= \frac{360}{\bar{\wp}^3}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2 $$ and $$ {\Pi}_{15,15}= -\frac{720}{\bar{\wp}^3}\hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_2. $$$$ {\gimel}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} \mathcal{X}_{1i}\mathcal{H}^T_{i}\mathcal{C}^T_{i} & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{14\ times} \end{array}\right]^T, $$$$ {\Xi}_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} \mathfrak{B}^T_{i} & \mathfrak{B}^T_{i} & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{13\ times} \end{array}\right]^T $$, $$ {{\Xi}_2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} \mathfrak{N}_{i}\mathcal{X}_{1i} & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{14\ times} \end{array}\right], $$$$ {{\Xi}_3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} \mathcal{X}_{1i} \mathfrak{B}_{i}^T & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{14\ times} \end{array}\right]^T, $$$$ {{\Xi}_4}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} \mathfrak{N}_{i}^T\mathcal{X}_{1i} & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{14\ times} \end{array}\right], $$$$ {{\Xi}_5}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} (\mathcal{X}_{1i}\mathcal{C}^T_i\tilde{\kappa}_1)^T & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{14\ times} \end{array}\right]^T. $$ In addition, if the above-offered constraints have a workable solution, then the gain matrices can be computed by using the ensuing connection: $$ \mathcal{L}_{i}=\mathcal{L}_{oi}\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}^{-1} $$, $$ \mathcal{L}_{pi}=\mathcal{L}_{si}\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}^{-1} $$ and $$ \mathcal{K}_j=\mathcal{Y}_j{\mathfrak{X}}_{1i}^{-1} $$.

Proof 2The proof of this theorem follows from the results (10) obtained in Theorem 1 along with system uncertainty and extended dissipative theory. To proceed ahead, let us impose the conditions $$ \mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i}=\mathfrak{X}_{1i} $$, $$ \mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i}=\mathfrak{X}_{2i} $$, $$ \mathcal{U}^{-1}_{3i}=\mathfrak{X}_{3i} $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{1i}\mathcal{W}_1\mathfrak{X}_{1i}=\hat{\mathcal{W}}_1 $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{1i}\mathcal{W}_2\mathfrak{X}_{1i}=\hat{\mathcal{W}}_2 $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{2i}\mathcal{W}_3\mathfrak{X}_{2i}=\hat{\mathcal{W}}_3 $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{2i}\mathcal{W}_4\mathfrak{X}_{2i}=\hat{\mathcal{W}}_4 $$, $$ \mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{X}_2=\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_2\mathcal{C}_i $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{1i}\breve{\mathcal{W}}_{1}\mathfrak{X}_{1i}=\hat{\breve{\mathcal{W}}}_{1} $$, $$ \mathfrak{X}_{2i}\breve{\mathcal{W}}_{2}\mathfrak{X}_{1i}=\hat{\breve{\mathcal{W}}}_{2} $$, along with pre- and post- multiplication by $$ \{\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i}, \mathcal{U}^{-1}_{3i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i}, \mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i}, I,\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{1i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i},\mathcal{U}^{-1}_{2i}\} $$ of the matrix $$ \Lambda_{i,j} $$ in the previous theorem. As a result of this presumption and by making use of Schur complement, we arrive at the matrix $$ \Theta_{ij} $$ defined in the theorem statement.

Further by tracing the similar fashion of Theorem 1, we can attain $$ \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}(t)\}\prec 0 $$. Then, with the extended dissipative criterion $$ \zeta (t) $$, we can obtain the following relation:

$$ \mathbb{E}\{\dot{\mathcal{V}}(t)\}-\zeta (t)\leq 0. $$

Moreover, by integrating the above inequality from $$ 0\ \mathit{\mbox{to}}\ τ $$, we obtain

$$ \mathbb{E}\{\mathcal{V}(t)\} \leq \mathbb{E}\{\int\limits_0^τ \zeta(s) ds\}. $$

On the basis of Definition 1, we have

$$ \mathbb{E}\left\lbrace\int_{0}^{T_f} \zeta(t) dt\right\rbrace-\sup\limits_{0\leq t \leq T_f} \mathbb{E}\left\lbrace y^T(t)\kappa_4 y(t) \right\rbrace\geq \gamma. $$

Subsequently, we need to establish that the above constraint obeys for any matrices $$ \kappa_1, \kappa_2, \kappa_3 $$ and $$ \kappa_4 $$ under the setting of Assumption 1. In this regard, we can characterize the parameter $$ \kappa_4 $$ into two types.

First, if $$ \|\kappa_4\|=0 $$, then the inequality (22) implies for any $$ T_f\geq 0 $$ that

$$ \int\limits_0^{T_f} \zeta(s) ds\geq \gamma. $$

If $$ \|\kappa_4\|\neq 0 $$, we can have from Assumption 1 that the associated matrices are $$ \kappa_1 = 0 $$, $$ \kappa_2 = 0 $$, $$ \kappa_3 > 0 $$, thus for any $$ T_f \geq t \geq 0 $$, we have

$$ \int\limits_0^{T_f} \zeta(s) ds\geq \int\limits_0^{t} \zeta(s) ds \geq \gamma. $$

Suppose there exists a scalar $$ 0<\eta <1 $$ such that

$$ \int\limits_0^{T_f} \zeta(s) ds\geq \eta x^T(t)\mathcal{U}_{1i}x(t)+\gamma. $$

By letting $$ \mathcal{C}_i^T\kappa_4\mathcal{C}_i< \eta \mathcal{U}_{1i} $$, then we have

$$ y^T(t) \kappa_4 y(t)=x^T(t) \mathcal{C}_i^T\kappa_4\mathcal{C}_i x(t)< \eta x^T(t)x(t). $$

It is clear from (25) and (26) that

$$ \int\limits_0^{T_f} \zeta(s) ds\geq y^T(t) \kappa_4 y(t)+\gamma. $$

Thus, the inequality (9) holds for $$ T_f\geq 0 $$. Further, if conditions (19)-(20) hold, then we conclude that addressed system (1) is asymptotically stable with the extended dissipative which concludes the proof of this theorem.

At the end of this portion, we prove that the fuzzy chaotic system (1) is asymptotically stable with extended dissipative thorough the designed fault-tolerant controller (6) under the unknown actuator faults.

Theorem 3Let $$ \bar{\wp} $$, $$ {v} $$, $$ \varrho $$, $$ \varepsilon $$, $$ \gamma $$ be given positive scalars. Then, system (1) with the unknown fault controller (6) is asymptotically stable with the extended dissipative, if there exist positive scalars $$ \mu $$, $$ \vartheta_1 $$, $$ \vartheta_2 $$ and matrices $$ \mathfrak{X}_{mi}> 0 $$, $$ (m=1,2,3) $$, $$ \hat{\mathcal{W}}_g> 0 $$$$ (g=1,2,3,4) $$, $$ \hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{1} $$ and $$ \hat{\check{\mathcal{W}}}_{2}>0 $$ such that the ensuing LMIs hold:

$$ \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} -\mu I & \mathcal{C}_i\mathfrak{X}_{2i}-\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}\mathcal{C}_i\\ \ast & - I \end{array} \right]< 0, $$

$$ \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} {\Theta}_{ij} & \varepsilon\mathfrak{S}^T_1 & \mathfrak{S}_2 & \mathfrak{S}_3^T\\ * &-\varepsilon I & 0 & 0 \\ * & * & -\varepsilon I & 0 \\ * & * & * & -\varepsilon I \\ \end{array}\right]< 0, $$

where $$ \mathfrak{S}_{1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc} \mathcal{B}^T_i\mathfrak{G}^T_1 & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{20 \ times} \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathfrak{S}_{2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathcal{Y}^T_j & 0 & \mathcal{Y}^T_j & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{15 \ times} \end{array}\right]^T $$, $$ \mathfrak{S}_{3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc} \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{15 \ times} & \mathcal{B}^T_i\mathfrak{G}_1 & \underbrace{0 \cdots 0}_{5 \ times} \end{array}\right] $$. Furthermore, the gain matrices of offered controller and observer are obtained by solving the ensuing connection $$ \mathcal{L}_{i}=\mathcal{L}_{oi}\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}^{-1} $$, $$ \mathcal{L}_{pi}=\mathcal{L}_{si}\bar{\mathfrak{X}}_{2i}^{-1} $$ and $$ \mathcal{K}_j=\mathcal{Y}_j{\mathfrak{X}}_{1i}^{-1} $$.

Proof 3The proof of this theorem can be straightforwardly obtained by replacing the actuator fault matrix $$ \mathfrak{G}_f $$ with $$ \mathfrak{G}_0+\mathfrak{G}_1\Sigma $$ in the previous theorem. Thus, the proof is omitted here.

Remark 1It should be mentioned that the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional is specifically designed to handle systems with delays. It accounts for the past states of the system, making it suitable for systems where delay affects stability, which traditional Lyapunov functionals may not address adequately. Further, it allows for a more comprehensive analysis of stability, as it includes integral terms that capture the system's history over a time interval. This inclusion can result in less conservative stability criteria compared to conventional Lyapunov functionals. On the other hand, extended Wirtinger inequality plays a significant role in maximizing the feasible region of stability criteria and obtaining maximum delay bounds of time delays for guaranteeing system stability in a given constraint. Thus, based on these considerations, in our work, Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional with double-integral term is considered. Subsequently, the LMI conditions are derived based on the constructed Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional by properly applying the extended Wirtinger inequality.

4. SIMULATION VERIFICATION

This section includes an illustrative example demonstrating the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed criterion. Notably, we leverage MATLAB software to aid in the acquisition of simulation results. For this purpose, we consider a chaotic Rossler's system [51] and its dynamics are laid out below:

$$ \begin{cases} \dot{x}_1(t)=-x_2(t)-x_3(t),\\ \dot{x}_2(t)=x_1(t)+\mathfrak{a} x_2(t),\\ \dot{x}_3(t)=\mathfrak{b} x_1(t)-(\mathfrak{c}-x_1(t))x_3(t)+u(t), \end{cases} $$

where $$ x_1(t) \in \left[\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{d}\ \ \mathfrak{c}+\mathfrak{d}\right] $$, by using fuzzy modeling method as in [51], we get the system matrices as $$ \mathcal{A}_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & -1 & -1\\ 1 & \mathfrak{a} & 0\\ \mathfrak{b} & 0 & -\mathfrak{d} \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathcal{A}_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & -1 & -1\\ 1 & \mathfrak{a} & 0\\ \mathfrak{b} & 0 & \mathfrak{d} \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathcal{B}_1=\mathcal{B}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0\\ 0 \\ 1 \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathcal{D}_1=\mathcal{D}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.1\\ 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3\\ 0.1 & 0.7 & 0.4 \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathcal{C}_1=\mathcal{C}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathfrak{B}_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0.12 & 0.15 & 0\\ 0.22 & 0 & 0.3\\ 0.31 & 0.2 & 0.2 \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathfrak{B}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0.12 & 0.1 & 0\\ 0.32 & 0 & 0.4\\ 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.3 \end{array}\right] $$, $$ \mathfrak{N}_1=\mathfrak{N}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0.1 & 0.4 & 0\\ 0.3 & 0 & 0.5\\ 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.1 \end{array}\right] $$. Further, we have taken the parameters involved in the simulation as $$ \mathfrak{a}=0.3 $$, $$ \mathfrak{b}=0.5 $$, $$ \mathfrak{c}=5 $$, $$ \mathfrak{d}=10 $$, $$ \bar{v}=0.3 $$, $$ \bar{\wp}=0.5 $$, $$ \alpha=0.6 $$, $$ \delta_1=1.2 $$, $$ \delta_2=1.5 $$, $$ \gamma=0.01 $$, $$ \kappa_1=5 $$, $$ \kappa_2=0.2 $$, $$ \kappa_3=0.7 $$, $$ \varepsilon=0.9 $$, and $$ \varrho=1 $$. The fuzzy membership function to this network transmission is taken as $$ 𝒷_{1}(\phi(t))=\frac{\mathfrak{c}+\mathfrak{d}-x_1(t)}{2\mathfrak{d}} $$ and $$ 𝒷_{2}(\phi(t))=1-𝒷_{1}(\phi(t)) $$. Moreover, the actuator fault $$ \mathfrak{G}_f $$ is assumed within the interval $$ (0.2,0.8) $$ and the time-varying delay is selected as $$ \wp(t)=0.3+0.6(0.9+0.5sin(0.3τ)) $$. Specifically, the chaotic behavior of the considered system model is supplied in Figure 1.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 1. Chaotic behavior of considered system under these parameters.

Moreover, by inputting the aforementioned parameters in Theorem 3 and solving it via standard software, the controller and observer gains are obtained as follows:

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{K}_1=&\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0.3703 & 0.0422 & -0.0448 \end{array}\right], \quad \mathcal{K}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0.3674 & 0.1812 & 0.0209 \end{array}\right],\\ \mathcal{L}_{1}=&\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 8.3546 & -1.0633 & -1.6445\\ -1.0633 & 12.0220 & -0.1654\\ -1.6445 & -0.1654 & 4.5937 \end{array}\right],\ \mathcal{L}_{2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 24.5503 & -7.0704 & -2.3350\\ -7.0704 & 51.0683 & 0.7260\\ -2.3350 & 0.7260 & 33.8401 \end{array}\right],\\ \mathcal{L}_{p_1}=&\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1.7967 & -0.1956 & 0.0187\\ -0.1956 & 1.3038 & 0.0149\\ 0.0187 & 0.0149 & 0.9877 \end{array}\right],\ \mathcal{L}_{p_2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 3.9617 & 0.1771 & -0.2038\\ 0.1771 & 2.5764 & -0.0264\\ -0.2038 & -0.0264 & 0.0819 \end{array}\right]. \end{align*} $$

For simulation purposes, the external disturbance signal and nonlinear deception attack function are considered as

$$ w(t)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0.1\sin(0.4\pi τ) & 0.2\sin(0.4\pi τ) & 0.3\sin(0.4\pi τ) \end{array}\right]^T $$

and

$$ f(y(t))=\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0.01\tanh(0.2 x_1(t)) & 0.03\tanh(0.5 x_2(t))) & 0.04\tanh(0.2 x_3(t))\end{array}\right].^T $$

In the follow-up, by utilizing the gain matrices and the parameters put forward above, the simulation task is carried out under random initial conditions. Specifically, in Figure 2, the response of the state trajectories in the presence and absence of the control is presented. It can be seen that the system trajectories diverge when the controller is absent, whereas, under the developed controller, the intended performance of the system is accomplished. In other words, the system trajectories converge to the equilibrium point, even in the presence of several deteriorating factors. From these figures, the inherent potential of the developed control is straightforwardly exhibited. Furthermore, the significance of the developed observer is demonstrated in Figure 3. Herein, the observer trajectories precisely estimate the system trajectories, showcasing the viability of the observer.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 2. Time evolution of states of the undertaken system. (A) Open loop system; (B) Closed loop system.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 3. Response of system and its corresponding observer trajectories. (A) $$ x_1(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_1(t) $$; (B) $$ x_2(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_2(t) $$; (C) $$ x_3(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_3(t) $$.

Subsequently, to showcase the impact of actuator faults, Figures 4-6 are provided. Specifically, the trajectories of the system output with and without fault are presented in Figure 4. Likewise, the response of state and its respective observer response in the situation where the actuator is functioning normally without the fault are presented in Figure 5. It is evidently visible that the estimation performance is better when compared with Figure 3. Eventually, the pictorial representation of the developed control protocol under the same two scenarios is laid out in Figure 6. Overall, from these figures, the impact of actuator faults of the considered system and the observer is clearly exhibited.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 4. Progression of output trajectories. (A) With actuator faults; (B) Without actuator faults.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 5. Time profile of system and its corresponding observer without actuator faults. (A) $$ x_1(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_1(t) $$; (B) $$ x_2(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_2(t) $$; (C)$$ x_3(t)\ and\ \hat{x}_3(t) $$.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 6. Response of control trajectories. (A) With actuator faults; (B) Without actuator faults.

Ultimately, to highlight the potential of the configured PIO over the conventional Luenberger observer, Figure 7 is depicted. Specifically, in this figure, the state estimation trajectories for these two observers are offered. It is seen that the estimation error is reduced significantly. In sum, the results of this simulation study indicate that the suggested control mechanism assists the assayed systems in attaining asymptotic stability despite parameter uncertainties, input delay, deception attacks, and external disturbances.

Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators

Figure 7. Response of state estimation error. (A) Under PIO; (B) Under Luenberger observer.

5. CONCLUSION

Over this research endeavor, we have tackled the robust fault-tolerant control issue for the T-S fuzzy chaotic system in the midst of parameter uncertainties, input delay, deception assaults, and external disturbances. To begin, the system states have been estimated by means of configuring fuzzy-based observer and therein, the output measurement of the system model considers deception attacks in the output channel to ensure secure estimation. Therein, it is presupposed that the deception attacks occur at random which considers the Bernoulli distribution. Secondly, the robust fault-tolerant control has been developed by incorporating the actuator faults and input delays. Here, the system is driven to achieve its goals by substantially mitigating the actuator faults. Thirdly, adequate stability criteria are formed with the assistance of Lyapunov stability theory and the LMI approach and the gain matrices have been emitted based on the derived conditions. In the end, the numerical results are provided to show off the envisaged use of the set-up control technique.

DECLARATIONS

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing-original draft, writing - review & editing: Monisha S

Conceptualization, validation, software, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, methodology: Nithya V

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing: Sakthivel R

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of interest

All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2024.

REFERENCES

1. Peng S, Wang Q, Fu B. Exponential stabilization of chaotic systems based on fuzzy time-triggered intermittent control. Chaos Soliton Fract 2022;162:112390.

2. Asadollahi M, Ghiasi AR, Badamchizadeh MA. Adaptive control for a class of nonlinear chaotic systems with quantized input delays. J Franklin Inst 2020;357:254-78.

3. Chen G. Controlling chaos and bifurcations in engineering systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999, pp. 412-21. Available from: https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-Chaos-Bifurcations-Engineering-Systems/dp/0849305799[Last accessed on 28 Nov 2024].

4. Mobayen S, Tchier F. Composite nonlinear feedback control technique for master/slave synchronization of nonlinear systems. Nonlinear Dyn 2017;87:1731-47.

5. Ge ZM, Lin GH. The complete, lag and anticipated synchronization of a BLDCM chaotic system. Chaos Soliton Fract 2007;34:740-64.

6. Faieghi M, Suwat K, Delavari H, Baleanu D. LMI-based stabilization of a class of fractional-order chaotic systems. Nonlinear Dyn 2013;72:301-9.

7. Modiri A, Mobayen S. Adaptive terminal sliding mode control scheme for synchronization of fractional-order uncertain chaotic systems. ISA Trans 2020;105:33-50.

8. Rashidnejad Z, Karimaghaee P. Synchronization of a class of uncertain chaotic systems utilizing a new finite-time fractional adaptive sliding mode control. Chaos Soliton Fract X 2020;5:100042.

9. Xia Y, Wang J, Meng B, Chen X. Further results on fuzzy sampled-data stabilization of chaotic nonlinear systems. Appl Math Comput 2020;379:125225.

10. Chang YC. A robust tracking control for chaotic Chua's circuits via fuzzy approach. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I 2001;48:889-95.

11. Liu YJ, Zheng YQ. Adaptive robust fuzzy control for a class of uncertain chaotic systems. Nonlinear Dyn 2009;57:431-9.

12. Ababneh M, Almanasreh AM, Amasha H. Design of digital controllers for uncertain chaotic systems using fuzzy logic. J Franklin Inst 2009;346:543-56.

13. Chen L, Chen G. Fuzzy modeling, prediction, and control of uncertain chaotic systems based on time series. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I 2000;47:1527-31.

14. Tanaka K, Ikeda T, Wang HO. A unified approach to controlling chaos via an LMI-based fuzzy control system design. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I 1998;45:1021-40.

15. Wu HN, Bai MZ. Active fault-tolerant fuzzy control design of nonlinear model tracking with application to chaotic systems. IET Control Theory Appl 2009;3:642-53.

16. Li X, Ma D, Xie X, Sun Q. Fault-tolerant synchronization of chaotic systems with fuzzy sampled data controller based on adaptive event-triggered scheme. Int J Fuzzy Syst 2020;22:917-29.

17. Zhao L, Yang GH. Adaptive sliding mode fault tolerant control for nonlinearly chaotic systems against DoS attack and network faults. J Franklin Inst 2017;354:6520-35.

18. Su L, Shen H. Fault-tolerant dissipative synchronization for chaotic systems based on fuzzy mixed delayed feedback. Neurocomputing 2015;151:1407-13.

19. Wang H, Liu C, Huang X, Zhong Y, Qu D, Patton RJ. Extended state observer-based fault-tolerant control for an unmanned surface vehicle under asynchronous injection and deception attacks. Complex Eng Syst 2024;4:13.

20. Zhu ZY, Zhao ZS, Zhang J, Wang RK, Li Z. Adaptive fuzzy control design for synchronization of chaotic time-delay system. Inf Sci 2020;535:225-41.

21. Lam HK, Ling WK, Iu HC, Ling SH. Synchronization of chaotic systems using time-delayed fuzzy state-feedback controller. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I 2008;55:893-903.

22. Sun J, Wang H. Stability analysis for highly nonlinear switched stochastic systems with time-varying delays. Complex Eng Syst 2022;2:17.

23. Pai MC. Chaotic sliding mode controllers for uncertain time-delay chaotic systems with input nonlinearity. Appl Math Comput 2015;271:757-67.

24. Mobayen S, Ma J. Robust finite-time composite nonlinear feedback control for synchronization of uncertain chaotic systems with nonlinearity and time-delay. Chaos Soliton Fract 2018;114:46-54.

25. Zhou J, Er MJ. Adaptive output control of a class of uncertain chaotic systems. Syst Control Lett 2007;56:452-60.

26. Zheng W, Zhang Z, Lam HK, Sun F, Wen S. LMIs-based exponential stabilization for interval delay systems via congruence transformation: Application in chaotic Lorenz system. Chaos Soliton Fract 2023;176:114060.

27. Bowong S, Kakmeni M, Koina R. Chaos synchronization and duration time of a class of uncertain chaotic systems. Math Comput Simulat 2006;71:212-28.

28. Li M, Xia J, Zhao J, Zhang H, Shen H. Event-triggered extended dissipative control for networked singular systems. Int J Control Autom Syst 2021;19:382-91.

29. Xia J, Gao H, Liu M, Zhuang G, Zhang B. Non-fragile finite-time extended dissipative control for a class of uncertain discrete time switched linear systems. J Franklin Inst 2018;355:3031-49.

30. Li M, Zhao Ji, Xia J, Zhuang G, Zhang W. Extended dissipative analysis and synthesis for network control systems with an event-triggered scheme. Neurocomputing 2018;312:34-40.

31. Liu Y, Ma Y. Finite-time non-fragile extended dissipative control for T-S fuzzy system via augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional. ISA Trans 2021;117:1-15.

32. Li Y, Zhang J, Li Y. Command filter-based adaptive neural tracking control of nonlinear systems with multiple actuator constraints and disturbances. Complex Eng Syst 2024;4:5.

33. Adloo H, Noroozi N, Karimaghaee P. Observer-based model reference adaptive control for unknown time-delay chaotic systems with input nonlinearity. Nonlinear Dyn 2012;67:1337-56.

34. Rojas HD, Romero JC. On the equivalence between generalized proportional integral observer and disturbance observer. ISA Trans 2023;133:397-411.

35. Ouhib L, Kara R. Proportional observer design based on D-stability and Finsler's Lemma for Takagi-Sugeno systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2023;452:61-90.

36. Zhong Q, Yang J, Shi K, Zhong S, Li Z, Sotelo MA. Event-triggered H load frequency control for multi-area nonlinear power systems based on non-fragile proportional integral control strategy. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2022;23:12191-201.

37. Youssef T, Chadli M, Karimi HR, Wang R. Actuator and sensor faults estimation based on proportional integral observer for TS fuzzy model. J Franklin Inst 2017;354:2524-42.

38. Sun Y, Yu J, Yu X, Gao H. Decentralized adaptive event-triggered control for a class of uncertain systems with deception attacks and its application to electronic circuits. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I 2020;67:5405-16.

39. Wang D, Chen F, Meng B, Hu X, Wang J. Event-based secure H load frequency control for delayed power systems subject to deception attacks. Appl Math Comput 2021;394:125788.

40. Feng J, Xie J, Wang J, Zhao Y. Secure synchronization of stochastic complex networks subject to deception attack with nonidentical nodes and internal disturbance. Inf Sci 2021;547:514-25.

41. Bi Y, Wang T, Qiu J, Li M, Wei C, Yuan L. Adaptive Decentralized finite-time fuzzy secure control for uncertain nonlinear CPSs under deception attacks. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2023;31:2568-80.

42. Hu Z, Deng F, Su Y, Zhang J, Hu S. Security control of networked systems with deception attacks and packet dropouts: a discrete-time approach. J Franklin Inst 2021;358:8193-206.

43. Zhang N, Qi W, Pang G, Cheng J, Shi K. Observer-based sliding mode control for fuzzy stochastic switching systems with deception attacks. Appl Math Comput 2022;427:127153.

44. Han S, Kommuri SK, Lee S. Affine transformed IT2 fuzzy event-triggered control under deception attacks. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2021;29:322-35.

45. Zhao D, Tian Y, Zhao N. Adaptive neural control for delayed discrete-time switched systems under deception attacks. Complex Eng Syst 2024;4:1.

46. Rong N, Wang Z. State-dependent asynchronous intermittent control for IT2 T–S fuzzy interconnected systems under deception attacks. Nonlinear Dyn 2020;100:3433-48.

47. Song W, Wang Z, Wang J, Shan J. Particle filtering for a class of cyber-physical systems under Round-Robin protocol subject to randomly occurring deception attacks. Inf Sci 2021;544:298-307.

48. Jiang Y, Wu S, Yang H, Luo H, Chen Z, Yin S, Kaynak O. Secure data transmission and trustworthiness judgement approaches against cyber-physical attacks in an integrated data-driven framework. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 2022;52:7799-809.

49. Yu K, Chang XH. Quantized output feedback resilient control of uncertain system under hybrid cyber attacks. Int J Adapt Control Signal Process 2022;36:2954-70.

50. Samidurai R, Sriraman R, Cao J, Tu Z. Nonfragile stabilization for uncertain system with interval time-varying delays via a new double integral inequality. Math Methods Appl Sci 2018;41:6272-87.

51. Wang X, Park JH, She K, Zhong S, Shi L. Stabilization of chaotic systems with T–S fuzzy model and nonuniform sampling: A switched fuzzy control approach. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2019;27:1263-71.

Cite This Article

Research Article
Open Access
Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators
Sekaran Monisha, ... Rathinasamy Sakthivel

How to Cite

Monisha, S.; Nithya, V.; Sakthivel, R. Delay-dependent observer based control for uncertain fuzzy-chaotic systems with deception attacks and faulty actuators. Complex Eng. Syst. 2024, 4, 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ces.2024.67

Download Citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download.

Export Citation File:

Type of Import

Tips on Downloading Citation

This feature enables you to download the bibliographic information (also called citation data, header data, or metadata) for the articles on our site.

Citation Manager File Format

Use the radio buttons to choose how to format the bibliographic data you're harvesting. Several citation manager formats are available, including EndNote and BibTex.

Type of Import

If you have citation management software installed on your computer your Web browser should be able to import metadata directly into your reference database.

Direct Import: When the Direct Import option is selected (the default state), a dialogue box will give you the option to Save or Open the downloaded citation data. Choosing Open will either launch your citation manager or give you a choice of applications with which to use the metadata. The Save option saves the file locally for later use.

Indirect Import: When the Indirect Import option is selected, the metadata is displayed and may be copied and pasted as needed.

About This Article

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Data & Comments

Data

Views
32
Downloads
7
Citations
0
Comments
0
1

Comments

Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.

0
Download PDF
Share This Article
Scan the QR code for reading!
See Updates
Contents
Figures
Related
Complex Engineering Systems
ISSN 2770-6249 (Online)

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/