Open Access

Robust stability analysis for Lur’e systems with interval time-varying delays via Wirtinger-based inequality

  • Myeongjin Park1,
  • Ohmin Kwon1Email author,
  • Juhyun Park2,
  • Sangmoon Lee3 and
  • Eunjong Cha4
Advances in Difference Equations20142014:143

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2014-143

Received: 27 March 2014

Accepted: 28 April 2014

Published: 13 May 2014

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of robust stability for Lur’e systems with interval time-varying delays and parameter uncertainties. It is assumed that the parameter uncertainties are norm bounded. By constructing a newly augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional, less conservative sufficient stability conditions of the concerned systems are introduced within the framework of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs). Three numerical examples are given to show the improvements over the existing ones and the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

1 Introduction

The Lur’e system is one of a significant class of nonlinear systems and has a nonlinear element satisfying certain sector bounded constraints. Since the Lur’e system and absolute stability were firstly introduced by [1, 2], the study of the absolute stability for Lur’e system has attracted many researchers. Most nonlinear systems consist of feedback connections of linear dynamic systems and nonlinear elements. Thus, as regards practical systems, there are various kinds of nonlinearities it takes to operate various tasks of systems. For this reason, during a few decades, Lur’e system has received a great deal of attention due to its extensive applications [3, 4]. Moreover, we need to pay close attention to a delay in the time, which is a natural concomitant of the finite speed of information processing and/or amplifier switching in the implementation of the systems in various systems such as physical and biological systems, population dynamics, neural networks, networked control systems, and so on. It is well known that the time delay often causes undesirable dynamic behavior, such as performance degradation and instability of the systems. Therefore, the study on stability analysis for systems with time delay has been widely investigated. For more details, see the literature [514] and references therein. The recent remarkable result in the delay-dependent stability analysis of dynamic systems is the Wirtinger-based integral inequality [15]. This method provides a tighter lower bound of the integral terms of the quadratic form. It was shown that this method can be applied and effectively reduce the conservatism of various problems such as stability analysis of systems with constant and known delay or a time-varying delay, stabilization of sampled-data systems, and so on.

Returning to the Lur’e system, this system is also booked for the stability problem with time delay [1629]. Above all, in [16], the time-delayed Lur’e systems are dealt with sector and slope restricted nonlinearities and uncertainties. Li et al. [19] investigated the problem of delay-dependent absolute and robust stability for time-delay Lur’e system and the relaxed conditions were presented some previously ignored terms when estimating the triple integral Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional terms’ derivative. In [23], the problems of master-slave synchronization of Lur’e systems under time-varying delay-feedback controllers were investigated in the framework of LMIs. Ramakrishnan and Ray [29] proposed an improved delay-dependent sufficient stability condition for a class of Lur’e systems of neutral type by imposing tighter bounding on the time derivative of the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional without neglecting any useful terms with a delay-partitioning approach. However, there is room for further improvements in stability analysis of Lur’e system with time delay.

With the motivation mentioned above, in this paper, the problem to get improved delay-dependent sufficient stability conditions for a class of Lur’e systems with interval time-varying delays and parameter uncertainties are considered. Here, stability or stabilization of a system with interval time-varying delays has been a focused topic of theoretical and practical importance [30] in very recent years. The system with interval time-varying delays means that the lower bounds of the time delay which guarantees the stability of system is not restricted to zero, and they include the networked control system as one of the typical examples. Moreover, the analyses of systems with time delay can be classified as delay-dependent and delay-independent analysis [31]. To achieve this, by construction of a newly augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional and utilization of a Wirtinger-based inequality [15] and a reciprocally convex approach [5], new delay-dependent robust sufficient stability conditions are derived in terms of LMIs, which can be formulated as convex optimization algorithms which are amenable to computer solution [32]. Finally, three numerical examples are included to show the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Notation R n is the n-dimensional Euclidean space, and R m × n denotes the set of all m × n real matrices. X > 0 (respectively, X 0 ) means that the matrix X is a real symmetric positive definite (respectively, semidefinite) matrix. I n and 0 denote n × n identity matrix and zero matrix of appropriate dimension, respectively. refers to the Euclidean vector norm or the induced matrix norm. diag { } denotes the block diagonal matrix. For square matrix X, sym { X } means the sum of X and its symmetric matrix X T , i.e., sym { X } = X + X T . For any vectors x i R m ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ), col { x 1 , x 2 , , x n } means the column vector [ x 1 T , x 2 T , , x n T ] T R m n . X [ f ( t ) ] R m × n means that the elements of matrix X [ f ( t ) ] include the scalar value of f ( t ) , i.e., X [ f 0 ] = X [ f ( t ) = f 0 ] .

2 Preliminaries and problem statement

Consider the uncertain Lur’e systems with time-varying delays given by
x ˙ ( t ) = ( A + Δ A ( t ) ) x ( t ) + ( A d + Δ A d ( t ) ) x ( t h ( t ) ) + ( B + Δ B ( t ) ) ψ ( y ( t ) ) , y ( t ) = C x ( t ) ,
(1)
where x ( t ) R n is the state vector, y ( t ) R n y is the output vector, ψ ( ) R n y denotes the nonlinearity, which satisfies ψ i ( 0 ) = 0 ( i = 1 , , n y ), and
γ i ψ i ( u ) ψ i ( v ) u v γ i + , u v , u , v R
(2)
where γ i and γ i + are given constants. Here, for simplicity, let us define Γ = diag { γ 1 , , γ n } and Γ + = diag { γ 1 + , , γ n + } . A , A d R n × n , B R n × n y , and C R n y × n are the system matrices; and Δ A ( t ) , Δ A d ( t ) , and Δ B ( t ) are the parameter uncertainties of the form
[ Δ A ( t ) , Δ A d ( t ) , Δ B ( t ) ] = D F ( t ) [ E a , E d , E b ] ,
(3)

where D R n × n u , E a R n u × n , E d R n u × n , and E b R n u × n y are real known constant matrices; and F ( t ) R n u × n u is a real uncertain matrix function with Lebesgue measurable elements satisfying F T ( t ) F ( t ) I n u .

The delay h ( t ) is a time-varying continuous function satisfying
0 h m h ( t ) h M , d m h ˙ ( t ) d M ,
(4)

where h m , h M , d m , and d M are known constant values.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the delay-dependent stability analysis of system (1) with interval time-varying delays and parameter uncertainties.

For simplicity of the system’s representation, the system can be formulated as follows:
x ˙ ( t ) = A x ( t ) + A d x ( t h ( t ) ) + B ψ ( y ( t ) ) + D p ( t ) , p ( t ) = F ( t ) q ( t ) , q ( t ) = E a x ( t ) + E d x ( t h ( t ) ) + E b ψ ( y ( t ) ) .
(5)

Also, before deriving our main results, the following lemmas will be used in main results.

Lemma 1 ([15])

For a given matrix M > 0 , the following inequality holds for all continuously differentiable function x in [ a , b ] R n :
a b x ˙ T ( s ) M x ˙ ( s ) d s 1 b a ξ 1 T M ξ 1 + 3 b a ξ 2 T M ξ 2 ,

where ξ 1 = x ( b ) x ( a ) and ξ 2 = x ( b ) + x ( a ) 2 b a a b x ( s ) d s .

Lemma 2 ([33])

Let ζ R n , Φ = Φ T R n × n and B R m × n such that rank ( B ) < n . The following statements are equivalent:
  1. (i)

    ζ T Φ ζ < 0 , B ζ = 0 , ζ 0 ,

     
  2. (ii)

    B T Φ B < 0 , where B is a right orthogonal complement of B,

     
  3. (iii)

    X R n × m : Φ + X B + ( X B ) T < 0 .

     

3 Main results

In this section, new sufficient stability conditions for the system (5) will be derived. For convenience, the notations of several matrices are defined as
ζ ( t ) = col { x ( t ) , x ( t h m ) , x ( t h ( t ) ) , x ( k h M ) , x ˙ ( t ) , 1 h m t h m t x ( s ) d s , ζ ( t ) = 1 h ( t ) h m t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s , 1 h M h ( t ) t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s , ψ ( y ( t ) ) , p ( t ) } , η ( t ) = col { x ( t ) , t h m t x ( s ) d s , t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s , t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s } , Π 1 , 1 [ h ( t ) ] = [ e 1 , h m e 6 , ( h ( t ) h m ) e 7 , ( h M h ( t ) ) e 8 ] , Π 1 , 2 [ h ˙ ( t ) ] = [ e 5 , e 1 e 2 , e 2 ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) e 3 , ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) e 3 e 4 ] , Π 2 , 1 = [ e 1 e 2 , e 1 + e 2 2 e 6 ] , Π 2 , 2 = [ e 2 e 3 , e 2 + e 3 2 e 7 , e 3 e 4 , e 3 + e 4 2 e 8 ] , Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = sym { Π 1 , 1 [ h ( t ) ] P Π 1 , 2 [ h ˙ ( t ) ] T } Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = + [ e 2 , e 1 e 2 ] Q 2 [ e 2 , e 1 e 2 ] T ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ e 3 , e 1 e 3 ] Q 2 [ e 3 , e 1 e 3 ] T Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = + sym { [ e 7 , e 1 e 7 ] ( h ( t ) h m ) Q 2 [ 0 , e 5 ] T } Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = + ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ e 3 , e 1 e 3 ] Q 4 [ e 3 , e 1 e 3 ] T [ e 4 , e 1 e 4 ] Q 4 [ e 4 , e 1 e 4 ] T Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = + sym { [ e 8 , e 1 e 8 ] ( h M h ( t ) ) Q 4 [ 0 , e 5 ] T } , Ξ 2 = e 1 Q 1 e 1 T e 2 Q 1 e 2 T + e 2 Q 3 e 2 T e 4 Q 3 e 4 T Ξ 2 = + sym { [ e 9 e 1 C T Γ ] L 1 C e 5 T + [ e 1 C T Γ + e 9 ] L 2 C e 5 T } Ξ 2 = + h m 2 e 5 R 1 e 5 T + ( h M h m ) 2 e 5 R 2 e 5 T , Ψ = [ diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } M M T diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } ] , Ξ 3 = Π 2 , 1 diag { R 1 , 3 R 1 } Π 2 , 1 T Π 2 , 2 Ψ Π 2 , 2 T , Ω = sym { [ e 9 e 1 C T Γ ] K [ e 9 e 1 C T Γ + ] T } , Σ = ϵ { ( E a e 1 T + E d e 3 T + E b e 9 T ) T ( E a e 1 T + E d e 3 T + E b e 9 T ) e 10 I n u e 10 T } , Ξ [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] = Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] + Ξ 2 + Ξ 3 + Ω + Σ , ϒ = A e 1 T + A d e 3 T I n e 5 T + B e 9 T + D e 10 T ,
(6)

where e i R ( 8 n + n y + n u ) × n ( i = 1 , 2 , , 10 ) are defined as block entry matrices, e.g., e 3 T ζ ( t ) = x ( t h ( t ) ) .

Then the following theorem is given as the main result.

Theorem 1 For given scalars 0 h m h M , d m d M , diagonal matrices Γ and Γ + , the system (5) is asymptotically stable for (4), if there exist a positive scalar ϵ, positive definite matrices P R 4 n × 4 n , Q i R n × n ( i = 1 , 3 ), Q i R 2 n × 2 n ( i = 2 , 4 ), R i R n × n ( i = 1 , 2 ), positive definite diagonal matrices L i R n y × n y ( i = 1 , 2 ), K R n y × n y , and any matrix M R 2 n × 2 n satisfying the following LMIs:
ϒ T Ξ j , k ϒ < 0 ( j , k = 1 , 2 ) ,
(7)
Ψ 0 ,
(8)

where Ξ j , k are the four vertices of Ξ [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] with the bounds of h ( t ) and h ˙ ( t ) , that is, h M and h D when j = k = 1 , h M and h D when j < k , h m and h D when j > k , and h m and h D when j = k = 2 .

Proof Let us consider the following Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate:
V = η T ( t ) P η ( t ) + t h m t x T ( s ) Q 1 x ( s ) d s + t h ( t ) t h m [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 2 [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] d s + t h M t h m x T ( s ) Q 3 x ( s ) d s + t h M t h ( t ) [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 4 [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] d s + h m t h m t s t x ˙ T ( u ) R 1 x ˙ ( u ) d u d s + ( h M h m ) t h M t h m s t x ˙ T ( u ) R 2 x ˙ ( u ) d u d s + 2 i = 1 n 0 C i T x ( t ) [ l 1 i ( ψ i ( s ) γ i s ) + l 2 i ( γ i + s ψ i ( s ) ) ] d s .
(9)
It should be noted that
η ( t ) = [ x ( t ) t h m t x ( s ) d s t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s ] = [ x ( t ) t h m t x ( s ) d s ( 1 h ( t ) h m t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s ) ( h ( t ) h m ) ( 1 h M h ( t ) t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s ) ( h M h ( t ) ) ] = [ e 1 , h m e 6 , ( h ( t ) h m ) e 7 , ( h M h ( t ) ) e 8 ] Π 1 , 1 [ h ( t ) ] T ζ ( t )
(10)
and
η ˙ ( t ) = [ x ˙ ( t ) x ( t ) x ( t h m ) x ( t h m ) ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) x ( t h ( t ) ) ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) x ( t h ( t ) ) x ( t h M ) ] = [ e 5 , e 1 e 2 , e 2 ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) e 3 , ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) e 3 e 4 ] Π 1 , 2 [ h ˙ ( t ) ] T ζ ( t ) .
(11)
The time derivative of V can be calculated as
V ˙ = 2 η T ( t ) P η ˙ ( t ) + x T ( t ) Q 1 x ( t ) x T ( t h m ) Q 1 x ( t h m ) + [ x ( t h m ) t h m t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 2 [ x ( t h m ) t h m t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 2 [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] + 2 t h ( t ) t h m [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 2 [ 0 x ˙ ( t ) ] d s + x T ( t h m ) Q 3 x ( t h m ) x T ( t h M ) Q 3 x ( t h M ) + ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 4 [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] [ x ( t h M ) t h M t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 4 [ x ( t h M ) t h M t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] + 2 t h M t h ( t ) [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 4 [ 0 x ˙ ( t ) ] d s + h m 2 x ˙ T ( t ) R 1 x ˙ ( t ) h m t h m t x ˙ T ( s ) R 1 x ˙ ( s ) d s + ( h M h m ) 2 x ˙ T ( t ) R 2 x ˙ ( t ) ( h M h m ) t h M t h m x ˙ T ( s ) R 2 x ˙ ( s ) d s + 2 [ ψ ( C x ( t ) ) Γ C x ( t ) ] T L 1 C x ˙ ( t ) + 2 [ Γ + C x ( t ) ψ ( C x ( t ) ) ] T L 2 C x ˙ ( t ) = ζ T ( t ) ( Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] + Ξ 2 ) ζ ( t ) h m t h m t x ˙ T ( s ) R 1 x ˙ ( s ) d s ( h M h m ) t h ( t ) t h m x ˙ T ( s ) R 2 x ˙ ( s ) d s ( h M h m ) t h M t h ( t ) x ˙ T ( s ) R 2 x ˙ ( s ) d s .
(12)
By Lemma 1, the integral terms of the V ˙ are bounded as
h m t h m t x ˙ T ( s ) R 1 x ˙ ( s ) d s ξ 1 , 1 T ( t ) R 1 ξ 1 , 1 ( t ) 3 ξ 1 , 2 T ( t ) R 1 ξ 1 , 2 ( t )
(13)
and
( h M h m ) t h ( t ) t h m x ˙ T ( s ) R 2 x ˙ ( s ) d s ( h M h m ) t h M t h ( t ) x ˙ T ( s ) R 2 x ˙ ( s ) d s h M h m h ( t ) h m ξ 2 , 1 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 2 , 1 ( t ) 3 ( h M h m ) h ( t ) h m ξ 2 , 2 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 2 , 2 ( t ) h M h m h M h ( t ) ξ 3 , 1 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 3 , 1 ( t ) 3 ( h M h m ) h M h ( t ) ξ 3 , 2 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 3 , 2 ( t ) ,
(14)
where
ξ 1 , 1 ( t ) = x ( t ) x ( t h m ) = ( e 1 e 2 ) T ζ ( t ) , ξ 1 , 2 ( t ) = x ( t ) + x ( t h m ) 2 h m t h m t x ( s ) d s = ( e 1 + e 2 2 e 6 ) T ζ ( t ) , ξ 2 , 1 ( t ) = x ( t h m ) x ( t h ( t ) ) = ( e 2 e 3 ) T ζ ( t ) , ξ 2 , 2 ( t ) = x ( t h m ) + x ( t h ( t ) ) 2 h ( t ) h m t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s = ( e 2 + e 3 2 e 7 ) T ζ ( t ) , ξ 3 , 1 ( t ) = x ( t h ( t ) ) x ( t h M ) = ( e 3 e 4 ) T ζ ( t ) , ξ 3 , 2 ( t ) = x ( t h ( t ) ) + x ( t h M ) 2 h M h ( t ) t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s = ( e 3 + e 4 2 e 8 ) T ζ ( t ) .
Furthermore, if the inequality (8) holds, applying the reciprocally convex approach in [5] to (14) leads to
1 α ( t ) { ξ 2 , 1 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 2 , 1 ( t ) + 3 ξ 2 , 2 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 2 , 2 ( t ) } 1 1 α ( t ) { ξ 3 , 1 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 3 , 1 ( t ) + 3 ξ 3 , 2 T ( t ) R 2 ξ 3 , 2 ( t ) } = [ ξ 2 , 1 ξ 2 , 2 ξ 3 , 1 ξ 3 , 2 ] T [ 1 α ( t ) diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } 0 0 1 1 α ( t ) diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } ] [ ξ 2 , 1 ξ 2 , 2 ξ 3 , 1 ξ 3 , 2 ] [ ξ 2 , 1 ξ 2 , 2 ξ 3 , 1 ξ 3 , 2 ] T [ diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } M M T diag { R 2 , 3 R 2 } ] [ ξ 2 , 1 ξ 2 , 2 ξ 3 , 1 ξ 3 , 2 ] = ζ T ( t ) Ξ 3 ζ ( t )
(15)

for any 2 n × 2 n matrix M, where 1 α ( t ) = h M h m h ( t ) h m .

In addition, the following inequality holds for any positive diagonal matrix K:
0 2 [ ψ ( C x ( t ) ) Γ C x ( t ) ] T K [ ψ ( C x ( t ) ) Γ + C x ( t ) ] = ζ T ( t ) [ sym { [ e 9 e 1 C T Γ ] K [ e 9 e 1 C T Γ + ] T } ] Ω ζ ( t ) = ζ T ( t ) Ω ζ ( t ) .
(16)
Moreover, with the relational expression between p ( t ) and q ( t ) , p T ( t ) p ( t ) q T ( t ) q ( t ) , from the system (5), there exists a scalar ϵ > 0 satisfying the following inequality:
0 ϵ { q T ( t ) q ( t ) p T ( t ) p ( t ) } = ϵ ( E a x ( t ) + E d x ( t h ( t ) ) + E b ψ ( y ( t ) ) ) T ( E a x ( t ) + E d x ( t h ( t ) ) + E b ψ ( y ( t ) ) ) ϵ p T ( t ) p ( t ) = ζ T ( t ) [ ϵ { ( E a e 1 T + E d e 3 T + E b e 9 T ) T ( E a e 1 T + E d e 3 T + E b e 9 T ) e 10 I n u e 10 T } Σ ] ζ ( t ) = ζ T ( t ) Σ ζ ( t ) .
(17)
From (12) to (17) and by applying the S-procedure [32], V ˙ has a new upper bound:
V ˙ ζ T ( t ) ( Ξ 1 [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] + Ξ 2 + Ξ 3 + Ω + Σ ) ζ ( t ) .
(18)
Then a new stability condition for the system (1) can be written:
ζ T ( t ) Ξ [ h ( t ) , h ˙ ( t ) ] ζ ( t ) < 0
(19)

subject to ϒ ζ ( t ) = 0 .

Here, the above condition is affinely dependent on h ( t ) and h ˙ ( t ) . Also, from (i) and (iii) of Lemma 2, if the inequality (19) holds, then for any free matrix X with appropriate dimension, the condition (19) is equivalent to
Ξ j , k + sym { X ϒ } = Ω j , k < 0 ( j , k = 1 , 2 ) .
(20)

From (18) to (20), if (20) holds, then there exist positive scalars ε j , k ( j , k = 1 , 2 ) such that V ˙ ζ T ( t ) Ω j , k ζ ( t ) < ε j , k x ( t ) 2 ( j , k = 1 , 2 ). Therefore, it can be seen that for all time t, if (20) holds, then V ˙ < min j , k = 1 , 2 { ε j , k } x ( t ) 2 . From the Lyapunov stability theory, it can be concluded that if (20) holds, then the system (5) is asymptotically stable.

Lastly, by utilizing (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 2, one can confirm that the inequality (19) is equivalent to the inequality (7). This completes our proof. □

Remark 1 To reduce the conservatism of sufficient stability conditions, the very simple Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional with a Wirtinger-based inequality was utilized in the work [15], but a new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional was not introduced. In view of this, the main difference between this work and [15] is the use of t h ( t ) t h m [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 2 [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] d s and t h M t h ( t ) [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 4 [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] d s included in the new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional (9). In other words, by calculating their time derivatives, some cross terms such as
[ x ( t h m ) t h m t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 2 [ x ( t h m ) t h m t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] ( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 2 [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] + 2 t h ( t ) t h m [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 2 [ 0 x ˙ ( t ) ] d s
and
( 1 h ˙ ( t ) ) [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 4 [ x ( t h ( t ) ) t h ( t ) t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] [ x ( t h M ) t h M t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] T Q 4 [ x ( t h M ) t h M t x ˙ ( s ) d s ] + 2 t h M t h ( t ) [ x ( s ) s t x ˙ ( u ) d u ] T Q 4 [ 0 x ˙ ( t ) ] d s

are obtained and utilized in estimating the time derivative of the proposed Lyapunov-Krasovkii functional (9).

As a special case of Theorem 1, when the system (1) is the nominal form and the information about h ˙ ( t ) is unknown, then, based on a new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate given by
V = [ x ( t ) t h m t x ( s ) d s t h M t h m x ( s ) d s ] T P [ x ( t ) t h m t x ( s ) d s t h M t h m x ( s ) d s ] + t h m t x T ( s ) Q 1 x ( s ) d s + t h M t h m x T ( s ) Q 3 x ( s ) d s + h m t h m t s t x ˙ T ( u ) R 1 x ˙ ( u ) d u d s + ( h M h m ) t h M t h m s t x ˙ T ( u ) R 2 x ˙ ( u ) d u d s + 2 i = 1 n 0 C i T x ( t ) [ l 1 i ( ψ i ( s ) γ i s ) + l 2 i ( γ i + s ψ i ( s ) ) ] d s ,
(21)

the following theorem can be obtained.

Theorem 2 For given scalars 0 h m h M , diagonal matrices Γ and Γ + , the nominal form of the system (1) is asymptotically stable for h m h ( t ) h M , if there exist positive definite matrices P R 3 n × 3 n , Q i R n × n ( i = 1 , 3 ), R i R n × n ( i = 1 , 2 ), positive definite diagonal matrices L i R n y × n y ( i = 1 , 2 ), K R n y × n y , and any matrix M R 2 n × 2 n satisfying the LMIs (8) and
ϒ ˆ T Ξ ˆ i ϒ ˆ < 0 ( i = 1 , 2 ) ,
(22)

where Ξ ˆ i are the two vertices of Ξ ˆ [ h ( t ) ] with the bounds of h ( t ) , that is, h M when i = 1 and h M when i = 2 , and ϒ ˆ = A e 1 T + A d e 3 T I n e 5 T + B e 9 T .

Proof The new upper bound of the time derivative of (21) can be calculated as
V ˙ ζ ˆ T ( t ) Ξ ˆ [ h ( t ) ] ζ ˆ ( t ) ,
(23)
where
ζ ˆ ( t ) = col { x ( t ) , x ( t h m ) , x ( t h ( t ) ) , x ( k h M ) , x ˙ ( t ) , 1 h m t h m t x ( s ) d s , ζ ˆ ( t ) = 1 h ( t ) h m t h ( t ) t h m x ( s ) d s , 1 h M h ( t ) t h M t h ( t ) x ( s ) d s , ψ ( y ( t ) ) } , Ξ ˆ [ h ( t ) ] = sym { [ e 1 , h m e 6 , ( h ( t ) h m ) e 7 + ( h M h ( t ) ) e 8 ] P [ e 5 , e 1 e 2 , e 2 e 4 ] T } Ξ ˆ [ h ( t ) ] = + Ξ 2 + Ξ 3 + Ω

with replacing the block entry matrices to e i R ( 8 n + n y ) × n ( i = 1 , , 9 ), which is very similar to the proof of Theorem 1, so it is omitted. □

4 Illustrative examples

Example 1 Consider the system (1) with
A = [ 1.2 0 0.8 1 ] , A d = [ 1 0.6 0.6 1 ] , B = I 2 , C = I 2 , D = diag { θ , θ } , E a = diag { 0.2 , 0.2 } , E d = E b = diag { 0.03 , 0.03 } , Γ = 0 , Γ + = diag { 1 , 3 } .
(24)
Table 1 shows the results of the maximum allowable delay bounds with various θ and fixed h m = d m = 0 for the above system. It can be seen that Theorem 1 in this work provides a larger delay bound than the existing works. This indicates that the presented conditions relieve the conservativeness of the stability caused by time delay.
Table 1

Maximum allowable delay bounds with fixed h m = d m = 0 (Example 1)

 

θ

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

d M = 0

Choi et al. [18]

1.113

1.062

1.014

0.967

0.921

0.877

Chen et al. [17]

3.325

3.128

2.849

2.780

2.651

2.522

Li et al. [19]

3.355

3.172

2.912

2.876

2.734

2.614

Theorem 1

4.372

3.840

3.456

3.160

2.921

2.723

d M = 0.1

Choi et al. [18]

1.026

0.984

0.940

0.898

0.857

0.818

Chen et al. [17]

3.160

2.899

2.840

2.702

2.575

2.460

Li et al. [19]

3.224

3.046

2.900

2.804

2.603

2.554

Theorem 1

3.616

3.295

3.039

2.828

2.649

2.491

Example 2 Consider the Chua circuit [34] given by
x ˙ 1 ( t ) = α ( x 2 ( t ) h ( x 1 ( t ) ) ) , x ˙ 2 ( t ) = x 1 ( t ) x 2 ( t ) + x 3 ( t ) , x ˙ 3 ( t ) = β x 2 ( t )
with the nonlinear function h ( x 1 ( t ) ) = m 1 x 1 ( t ) + 1 2 ( m 0 m 1 ) ( | x 1 ( t ) + c | | x 1 ( t ) c | ) , where the parameters are m 0 = 1 7 , m 1 = 2 7 , α = 9 , β = 14.28 , and c = 1 ; its Lur’e form can be rewritten with
A = [ α m 1 α 0 1 1 1 0 β 0 ] , A d = 0 3 , B = [ α ( m 0 m 1 ) 0 0 ] , C = [ 1 0 0 ] .
Furthermore, according to the works [23, 29], a master-slave error system using static error feedback control with time-varying delay is presented as
m ˙ ( t ) = A m ( t ) + B ψ ( C m ( t ) ) , s ˙ ( t ) = A s ( t ) + B ψ ( C s ( t ) ) K ( m ( t ) s ( t ) ) + L ( C m ( t h ( t ) ) C s ( t h ( t ) ) )
and defining e ( t ) = m ( t ) s ( t ) leads to
e ˙ ( t ) = ( A + K ) e ( t ) L C e ( t h ( t ) ) + B ψ ( C e ( t ) ) .

Here, ψ ( s ) belongs to the sector bound [ 0 , 1 ] .

For comparison with the existing works, the controller gains are selected by
K = diag { 1 , 1 , 1 } , L = [ 6.0029 1.3367 2.1264 ] T .
Synthetically, the above error system is equal to the nominal form of system (1) with
A = [ α m 1 1 α 0 1 2 1 0 β 1 ] , A d = [ 6.0029 0 0 1.3367 0 0 2.1264 0 0 ] , B = [ α ( m 0 m 1 ) 0 0 ] , C = [ 1 0 0 ] .
(25)
For system (1) with (25), the result of the maximum allowable delay bound with fixed h m = 0 , unknown d m and d M obtained by Theorem 2 is listed in Table 2. One can see that our result for this example gives a larger maximum allowable delay bound than those of [23] and [29]. Even though the number of decision variables of Theorem 2 is larger than that of [23], it is smaller than that of [29]. To confirm the obtained result, a simulation result when the time delay is h ( t ) = 0.0895 sin ( 11.1794 t ) + 0.0895 and the initial value x ( 0 ) = [ 1 , 0.5 , 1 ] T is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Phase trajectory (Example 2).

Table 2

Maximum allowable delay bounds with fixed h m = 0 , unknown d m and d M (Example 2)

Methods

h M

NoVar

Han [23]

0.1527

19

Ramakrishnan and Ray [29]

0.1698

162

Theorem 2

0.1789

108

Number of decision variables.

Example 3 Consider the nominal form of system (1) with
A = [ 0 1 1 2 ] , A d = [ 0 0 1 1 ] .
(26)
For the above system, the results of the maximum allowable delay bound with various h m = 0 , unknown d m and d M are compared with the previous results in Table 3. It can also be shown that the proposed sufficient stability condition improves the stability region. Furthermore, the number of utilized decision variables in Theorem 2 is much smaller than those of [19, 22], and [21].
Table 3

Maximum allowable delay bounds with unknown d m and d M (Example 3)

h m

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

2.0

NoVar

Shao [20]

1.072

1.219

1.454

1.617

2.480

15

Sun et al. [21]

1.104

1.276

1.485

1.694

2.515

85

Orihuela et al. [22]

1.223

1.360

1.582

1.738

2.572

290

Park et al. [5]

1.240

1.380

1.600

1.750

2.570

19

Li et al. [19]

1.278

1.415

1.655

1.786

2.590

283

Theorem 2

1.351

1.473

1.677

1.824

2.637

49

Number of decision variables.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, the delay-dependent stability problem for the Lur’e systems with interval time-varying delays and parameter uncertainties was dealt. In Theorem 1, the improved robust sufficient stability condition for the concerned systems was proposed by introducing the augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional and using some approaches. In Theorem 2, based on the result of Theorem 1, the sufficient stability condition for the nominal form of Lur’e systems with interval time-varying delays having a constraint on the unknown h ˙ ( t ) was presented. Three illustrative examples have been given to show the effectiveness and usefulness of the presented sufficient conditions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2008-0062611), and by a Grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (A100054).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Electrical Engineering, Chungbuk National University
(2)
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yeungnam University
(3)
School of Electronic Engineering, Daegu University
(4)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Chungbuk National University

References

  1. Lur’e A: Some Problems in the Theory of Automatic Control. H.M. Stationary Office, London; 1957.Google Scholar
  2. Arzerman M, Gantmacher F: Absolute Stability of Regulator Systems. Holden-Day, San Francisco; 1964.Google Scholar
  3. Udwadia FE, Weber HI, Leitmann G: Dynamical Systems and Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Leitmann G, Udwadia FE, Kryazhimskii AV: Dynamics and Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton; 1999.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Park PG, Ko JW, Jeong C: Reciprocally convex approach to stability of systems with time-varying delays. Automatica 2011, 47: 235–238. 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.10.014MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Niculescu SI: Delay Effects on Stability: A Robust Approach. Springer, New York; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Richard JP: Time-delay systems: an overview of some recent advances and open problems. Automatica 2003, 39: 1667–1694. 10.1016/S0005-1098(03)00167-5MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Gu K: An integral inequality in the stability problem of time-delay systems. The 39th IEEE Conf. Decision Control 2000, 2805–2810. Dec. 2000, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim SH, Park P, Jeong CK:Robust H stabilisation of networks control systems with packet analyser. IET Control Theory Appl. 2010, 4: 1828–1837. 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0346View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Kwon OM, Park MJ, Lee SM, Park JH, Cha EJ: Stability for neural networks with time-varying delays via some new approaches. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2013, 24: 181–193.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Ma Y, Zhu L: New exponential stability criteria for neutral system with time-varying delay and nonlinear perturbations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2014., 2014: Article ID 44Google Scholar
  12. Zhou X, Zhong S, Ren Y: Delay-probability-distribution-dependent stability criteria for discrete-time stochastic neural networks with random delays. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013., 2013: Article ID 362Google Scholar
  13. Lien CH, Yu KW, Chen JD, Chung LY: Sufficient conditions for global exponential stability of discrete switched time-delay systems with linear fractional perturbations via switching signal design. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013., 2013: Article ID 39Google Scholar
  14. Park MJ, Kwon OM, Park JH, Lee SM, Cha EJ: Synchronization stability of delayed discrete-time complex dynamical networks with randomly changing coupling strength. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013., 2013: Article ID 208Google Scholar
  15. Seuret A, Gouaisbaut F: Wirtinger-based integral inequality: application to time-delay systems. Automatica 2013, 49: 2860–2866. 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.05.030MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee SM, Park JH: Delay-dependent criteria for absolute stability of uncertain time-delayed Lur’e dynamical systems. J. Franklin Inst. 2010, 347: 146–153. 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2009.08.002MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen YG, Bi WP, Li WL: New delay-dependent absolute stability criteria for Lur’e systems with time-varying delay. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2011, 42: 1105–1113. 10.1080/00207720903308348MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Choi SJ, Lee SM, Won SC, Park JH: Improved delay-dependent stability criteria for uncertain Lur’e systems with sector and slope restricted nonlinearities and time-varying delays. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 208: 520–530. 10.1016/j.amc.2008.12.026MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Li T, Qina W, Wang T, Fei S: Further results on delay-dependent absolute and robust stability for time-delay Lur’e system. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 2013. 10.1002/rnc.3056Google Scholar
  20. Shao HY: New delay-dependent stability criteria for systems with interval delay. Automatica 2009, 45: 744–749. 10.1016/j.automatica.2008.09.010View ArticleMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Sun J, Liu GP, Chen J, Rees D: Improved delay-range-dependent stability criteria for linear systems with time-varying delays. Automatica 2010, 46: 466–470. 10.1016/j.automatica.2009.11.002MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Orihuela L, Millan P, Vivas C, Rubio FR: Robust stability of nonlinear time-delay systems with interval time-varying delay. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 2011, 21: 709–724. 10.1002/rnc.1616MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Han QL: On designing time-varying delay feedback controllers for master-slave synchronization of Lur’e systems. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Regul. Pap. 2007, 54: 1573–1583.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Shatyrko A, Diblík J, Khusainov D, Ru̇žičková M: Stabilization of Lur’e-type nonlinear control systems by Lyapunov-Krasovskii functionals. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2012., 2012: Article ID 229Google Scholar
  25. Shatyrko AV, Khusainov DY, Diblík J, Bastinec J, Rivolova A: Estimates of perturbation of nonlinear indirect interval control system of neutral type. J. Autom. Inf. Sci. 2011, 43: 13–28. 10.1615/JAutomatInfScien.v43.i1.20View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Shatyrko AV, Khusainov DY: Investigation of absolute stability of nonlinear systems of special kind with aftereffect by Lyapunov functions method. J. Autom. Inf. Sci. 2011, 43: 61–75.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Shatyrko AV, Khusainov DY: Stability of Nonlinear Control Systems with Aftereffect. Inform.-Analit. Agency Publ., Kyiv; 2012.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Shatyrko AV, Khusainov DY: On a stabilization method in neutral type direct control systems. J. Autom. Inf. Sci. 2013, 45: 1–10.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramakrishnan K, Ray G: An improved delay-dependent stability criterion for a class of Lur’e systems of neutral type. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2012., 134: Article ID 011008Google Scholar
  30. Kharitonov VL, Niculescu SI: On the stability of linear systems with uncertain delay. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2003, 48: 127–132. 10.1109/TAC.2002.806665MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu S, Lam J: A survey of linear matrix inequality techniques in stability analysis of delay systems. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2008, 39: 1095–1113. 10.1080/00207720802300370MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Boyd S, El Ghaoui L, Feron E, Balakrishnan V: Linear Matrix Inequalities in Systems and Control Theory. SIAM, Philadelphia; 1994.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. de Oliveira MC, Skelton RE: Stability Tests for Constrained Linear Systems. Springer, Berlin; 2001:241–257.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Chua LO, Komura M, Matsumoto T: The double scroll family. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl. 1986, 33: 1072–1118.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.