Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2013, Article ID 517258, 8 pages
[Link]

Research Article
Stability Bound Analysis and Synthesis for Singularly Perturbed
Systems with Time-Varying Delay

Fengqi Sun,1 Linna Zhou,2 Qingling Zhang,1 and Yongxiang Shen3

1
Institute of Systems Science, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
2
School of Information and Electrical Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
3
Mathematics Department, Jilin Normal University, Siping 136000, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Fengqi Sun; jlsdsfq@[Link]

Received 22 September 2012; Revised 25 December 2012; Accepted 29 December 2012

Academic Editor: Baocang Ding

Copyright © 2013 Fengqi Sun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This paper addresses the problems of stability bound analysis and synthesis for singularly perturbed systems with time-varying
delay. First, by constructing an appropriate Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional, a sufficient condition is derived for the system to be
stable when the singular perturbation parameter is lower than a predefined upper bound which is referred to as the stability bound of
the singularly perturbed system. The proposed criterion needs less computational cost than the existing ones. Then, a state feedback
controller design method is proposed to achieve a prescribed stability bound, which can be applied to both standard and nonstan-
dard singularly perturbed systems with time-varying delay. Finally, the effectiveness and merits of the proposed approach are shown
through numerical examples.

1. Introduction of approaches: frequency domain techniques and Lyapunov-

Krasovskii-functional-based approaches. In [11–14], fre-
Singularly perturbed systems (SPSs) have attracted much quency domain techniques were applied to establish stability
attention due to their extensive applications in chemical pro- criteria for SPSs with time delay in slow state. Lyapunov-
cesses, robots, aerospace engineering, power systems, mag- Krasovskii-functional-based approaches which are usually
netic-ball suspension systems, and so forth. Consequently, a expressed in terms of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) are
vast amount of effort has been devoted to deriving stability popular in recent years because LMI conditions can be easily
criteria for SPSs with constant or time-varying delays. There- verified by using convex optimization algorithms [2, 15]. In
fore, the relevant theory and application research have [16], robust stability of uncertain SPSs with state delays has
attracted much attention [1]. Stability problem for SPSs is been studied by Lyapunov-Krasovskii stability theory and
known as stability bound problem, which is referred to as the LMI technique. In [17], a delay-dependent LMI criterion for
problem of determining the stability bound 𝜀 such that the the stability of singularly perturbed differential-difference
system is stable for ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀]. Many results for stability systems has been derived. In [18], a stability criterion was
bound problem of SPSs have been reported [2, 3]. proposed for uncertain SPSs with time delays. Based on the
Delay is a widespread physical phenomenon in practical state space approach, the exact stability bound for discrete-
systems [4, 5]. In [6–10], by a reduction technique, some sig- time SPSs with multiple time delays was studied in [19].
nificant advances have been achieved in analysis and synthe- In [20], the problem of stabilization for SPSs with multiple
sis of SPSs where delays are proportional to perturbed param- time delays was considered. Instead of applying the Lyapunov
eter. For a more general case in which time delay and per- theory, the well-known comparison theorem and matrix
turbed parameter are independent, there are two main classes measure are employed to investigate the problem.
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

It should be emphasized that most of the reported results hold, then

on SPSs with time delay require the time delay to be time
invariant [6–20]. Little works deal with the stability problem 𝑆1 + 𝜀𝑆2 + 𝜀2 𝑆3 > 0, ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀] . (4)
of SPSs with time-varying delays. In [22], a stability criterion
was proposed for SPSs with time-varying delay by transform- Lemma 2 (see [1]). If there exist matrices 𝑍𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 5) of
ing the system into an equivalent descriptor system. But the appropriate dimensions with 𝑍𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖𝑇 (𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4) satisfying
proposed results cannot produce the stability bound of SPSs. the following LMIs:
In [23], an approach to estimate the stability bound of SPSs
with time-varying delays was proposed under model trans- 𝑍1 > 0,
formation. However, this constructive method is not easy to
𝑍1 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇
perform. Stability bound problem of SPSs with time-varying [ ] > 0,
delay was considered in [21] and an LMI-based method was 𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 (5)
proposed, which is easy to be solved by LMI solvers. This
𝑍 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇
paper will follow the line of [21] and will try to improve the [ 1 ] > 0,
existing results. 𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 + 𝜀2 𝑍4
In this paper, we consider the problems of stability bound
then
analysis and design of SPSs with time-varying delay. One con-
tribution of this paper is that through the use of a Lyapunov- 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) = (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀))𝑇 = 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) > 0, ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀] ,
Krasovskii functional, the obtained results have turned out
(6)
to be with less computational cost than the existing methods.
Another contribution is that the proposed methods do not where
depend on the system decomposition and thus they can be
applied to both standard and nonstandard SPSs with time- 𝑍1 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇 𝐼 0
𝑍 (𝜀) = [ ], 𝐸 (𝜀) = [ ].
varying delay. The presented examples show that the obtained 𝑍5 𝑍2 + 𝜀𝑍4 0 𝜀𝐼
methods are of less computational cost than some exist- (7)
ing ones, which results from newly developed Lyapunov-
Krasovskii functionals.
2.1. Stability Analysis. Consider the following SPS with time-
varying delay:
2. Main Results 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) = 𝐴𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) ,
(8)
Consider the following SPSs with tine-varying delay: 𝑥 (𝑡) = 𝜙 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ [−𝜏, 0) .
𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) = 𝐴𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) + 𝐵𝑢 (𝑡) ,
(1) Theorem 3. Given 𝜀 > 0, system (8) is asymptotically stable for
𝑥 (𝑡) = 𝜙 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ [−𝜏, 0) , ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀], and any 𝑑(𝑡) satisfying (2), if there exist symmetric
positive-definite matrices 𝑄 > 0, 𝑀 > 0, and matrices 𝑍𝑖 (𝑖 =
where 𝑥(𝑡) ∈ 𝑅𝑛 is the system state, and 𝑢(𝑡) ∈ 𝑅𝑚 is the con- 1, . . . , 5) with 𝑍𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖𝑇 (𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4) satisfying the following
trol input. 𝜙(𝑡) is initial condition of the system. 𝐸(𝜀) = LMIs:
𝐼 0
[ 𝑛01 𝜀𝐼𝑛 ] ∈ 𝑅𝑛×𝑛 , 𝐴 ∈ 𝑅𝑛×𝑛 , 𝐷 ∈ 𝑅𝑛×𝑛 , and 𝐵 ∈ 𝑅𝑛×𝑚 are
2 𝑍1 > 0,
known constant matrices. 𝑑(𝑡) is the time-varying delay and
satisfies 𝑍1 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇
[ ] > 0,
0 ≤ 𝑑 (𝑡) ≤ 𝜏, 𝑑̇ (𝑡) ≤ 𝜇 < 1, (2) 𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 (9)

where 𝜏 and 𝜇 are known constants. 𝑍 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇

[ 1 ] > 0,
Condition (2) is common in practice and is widely used 𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 + 𝜀2 𝑍4
in the investigations on analysis and design of systems subject
to time-varying delays [24–26]. In this paper, we aim at pro- 𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (0)+𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐴+𝑄+𝜏𝐴𝑇𝑀𝐴 𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐷 + 𝜏𝐴𝑇𝑀𝐷
[ ]
viding stability bound analysis and design method for system ∗ − (1−𝜇) 𝑄 + 𝜏𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷
(1). Some useful lemmas are provided for subsequent techni-
cal development of the paper. < 0,

Lemma 1 (see [1]). Given 𝜀 > 0, symmetric matrices 𝑆1 , 𝑆2 , 𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀)+𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴+𝑄+𝜏𝐴𝑇𝑀𝐴 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷 + 𝜏𝐴𝑇 𝑀𝐷
[ ]
and 𝑆3 , if ∗ − (1−𝜇) 𝑄 + 𝜏𝐷𝑇𝑀𝐷
𝑆1 ≥ 0, < 0,
(10)
𝑆1 + 𝜀𝑆2 > 0, (3)
𝜀𝑍5𝑇
𝑆1 + 𝜀𝑆2 + 𝜀2 𝑆3 > 0, where 𝑍(𝜀) = [ 𝑍1𝑍+𝜀𝑍3 𝑍2 +𝜀𝑍4
].
5
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

Proof. Define a quadratic Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional as = 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴) 𝑥 (𝑡)
follows:
+ (𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)))𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)
𝑉 (𝑥𝑡 ) = 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)
𝑡 + (𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡))𝑇 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
+∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠
𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)
= 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴) 𝑥 (𝑡)
0 𝑡
+∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃, + 2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) ,
−𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃
𝑡
𝑑
(11) (∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠)
𝑑𝑡 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)
where 𝑄 > 0, 𝑀 > 0.
By Lemma 2, LMIs (9) imply that = 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡) − (1 − 𝑑̇ (𝑡)) 𝑥𝑇

𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) = 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) > 0, ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀] . (12) × (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))

Thus 𝑉(𝑥𝑡 ) is a positive definite Lyapunov-Krasovskii func-
≤ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡) − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑥𝑇
tional.
By Lemma 1, it follows from (10) that × (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) ,
𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 0 𝑡
𝐴 𝑍 (𝜀)+𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐴+𝑄+𝜏𝐴 𝑀𝐴 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐷+𝜏𝐴 𝑀𝐷 𝑑
[ ] (∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃)
∗ − (1−𝜇) 𝑄+𝜏𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷 𝑑𝑡 −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃
< 0. = 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) − (1 − 𝑑̇ (𝑡))
(13)
0
Taking the derivative of 𝑉(𝑥𝑡 ) along the trajectories of the × ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃))𝑇
system (8), we have −𝜏

󵄨 × 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃) 𝑑𝜃
𝑉̇ (𝑥𝑡 )󵄨󵄨󵄨󵄨(8)
≤ 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) − (1 − 𝜇)
𝑑 𝑇
= (𝑥 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡))
𝑑𝑡 0

𝑡
× ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃))𝑇
𝑑 −𝜏
+ (∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠)
𝑑𝑡 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡) × 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃) 𝑑𝜃.
0 𝑡
𝑑 (15)
+ (∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃) .
𝑑𝑡 −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃 Since 𝑀 > 0, we have
(14) 0
It is easy to show that ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃) 𝑑𝜃 > 0,
−𝜏
𝑑
(𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)) 𝑑 0 𝑡
𝑑𝑡 (∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃)
𝑑𝑡 −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃
𝑑 𝑇
= (𝑥 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀)) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) ≤ 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) .
𝑑𝑡
(16)
𝑑
+ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) (𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)) Therefore,
𝑑𝑡
󵄨
= 𝑥̇ 𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑉̇ (𝑥𝑡 )󵄨󵄨󵄨󵄨(8) ≤ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴) 𝑥 (𝑡)

+ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) + 2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))

= (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡) − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑥𝑇

(17)
𝑇 𝑇
+ 𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍 (𝜀) (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)) × (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑄𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))

= (𝐴𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)))𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)

+ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) (𝐴𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))) = 𝜉𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐻 (𝜀) 𝜉 (𝑡) ,

4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

𝑇
where 𝜉(𝑡) = (𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑)) , Remark 7. When 𝜀 = 0, system (8) becomes a singular system
[27, 28]. Stability of singular systems with time-varying delay
𝐻 (𝜀) has been considered by many researchers (see, e.g., [4]).
Theorem 3 and Corollary 5 present sufficient conditions for
𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀)+𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴+𝑄+𝜏𝐴𝑇𝑀𝐴 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷+𝜏𝐴𝑇 𝑀𝐷 system (8) to be stable when 𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀], which excludes the
=[ ].
∗ − (1−𝜇) 𝑄+𝜏𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷 case 𝜀 = 0. In the future, we will study the stability problem of
(18) system (8) for 𝜀 ∈ [0, 𝜀], which is also an interesting problem.
From (13), we get 𝐻(𝜀) < 0, which yields
2.2. State Feedback Controller Design. In this subsection, we
𝜉𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐻 (𝜀) 𝜉 (𝑡) < 0. (19) will design a state feedback controller for system (1) to achieve
a given stability bound. A state feedback controller under
̇ 𝑡 )| < 0.
Therefore, 𝑉(𝑥 consideration is in the form of
(8)
Hence, system (8) is asymptotically stable for all 𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀].
𝑢 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑥 (𝑡) , (21)
Remark 4. By Theorem 3, an estimate of the stability bound
can be obtained. However, the results in [16–18, 22] are only where 𝐾 ∈ 𝑅𝑚×𝑛 is the controller gain to be designed. Then
sufficient conditions for the system to be stable for small the closed-loop system is as follows:
enough singular perturbation parameter.
𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) = (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) . (22)
By Theorem 3, it is easy to see that the following corollary
holds.
Theorem 8. Given 𝜀 > 0, if there exist matrices 𝑄 > 0, 𝐾 ̃ and
Corollary 5. Given 𝜀 > 0, system (8) is asymptotically stable 𝑇
𝑍𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 5) with 𝑍𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4), satisfying the
for ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀] and any 𝑑(𝑡) satisfying 𝑑(𝑡) ≥ 0 and 𝑑(𝑡) ̇ ≤ following LMIs:
𝜇 < 1, if there exist symmetric positive-definite matrices 𝑄 > 0,
and matrices 𝑍𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, . . . , 5) with 𝑍𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖𝑇 (𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4) 𝑍1 > 0, (23)
satisfying the following LMIs:
𝑍1 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇
𝑍1 > 0, [ ] > 0, (24)
𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2
𝑍 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇 𝑍 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇
[ 1 ] > 0, [ 1 ] > 0,
𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 + 𝜀2 𝑍4
(25)

𝑍1 + 𝜀𝑍3 𝜀𝑍5𝑇 ̃ + 𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵

𝐴𝑍 (0) + 𝐵𝐾 ̃ 𝑇+𝑄 𝐷𝑍 (0) ̃ 𝑇
𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵
[ ] > 0, [ 𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐷𝑇 ] < 0,
𝜀𝑍5 𝜀𝑍2 + 𝜀2 𝑍4 (20) ∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄
̃
∗ ∗ −𝜏−1 𝑀

𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (0) + 𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐴 + 𝑄 𝑍𝑇 (0) 𝐷 ̃ + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵

𝐴𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝐵𝐾 ̃ 𝑇+𝑄 𝐷𝑍 (𝜀) ̃ 𝑇
𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵
[ ] < 0,
∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄 [ ∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑇 ] < 0,
∗ ∗ ̃
−𝜏−1 𝑀
𝐴𝑇 𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴 + 𝑄 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷 (26)
[ ] < 0,
∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄
𝑇
where 𝑍(𝜀) = [ 𝑍1𝑍+𝜀𝑍3 𝑍 𝜀𝑍 5 ], then the closed-loop system (22)
𝜀𝑍5𝑇 2 +𝜀𝑍4
where 𝑍(𝜀) = [ 𝑍1𝑍+𝜀𝑍3 𝑍2 +𝜀𝑍4
]. 5
is asymptotically stable for ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀]. Under such conditions,
5

the gain matrix of controller (21) is 𝐾 = 𝐾𝑍 ̃ −1 (𝜀).

Remark 6. In [21], stability bound problem was considered
for SPSs with time delay, and LMI-based results were pro- Proof. Choose the following Lyapunov functional candidate:
posed. A new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional is used to
derive the analysis method. It is known that computational
cost of LMI conditions increases in direct proportion to the 𝑉 (𝑥𝑡 ) = 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)
number of decision variables and lines of the LMI conditions. 𝑡
In this sense, when the results of [21] are specialized to study +∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠
stability of system (1), they need more computational cost 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)
than Theorem 3 and Corollary 5 of the present paper as will 0 𝑡
be illustrated by an example in the next section. In addition, +∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃,
the proposed Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional is expected to −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃

be used to study the problems of robust stability and 𝐻∞ (27)

control for singularly perturbed systems with time-varying
delay. where 𝑄 > 0, 𝑀 > 0.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

0 𝑡
Now, considering the derivative of the Lyapunov func- 𝑑
(∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃)
tional candidate along the solution of SPSs with respect to 𝑡, 𝑑𝑡 −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃
we obtain
= 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)
󵄨
𝑉̇ (𝑥𝑡 )󵄨󵄨󵄨󵄨(22) 0
− (1 − 𝑑̇ (𝑡)) ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀)
𝑑 𝑇 −𝜏
= (𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡))
𝑑𝑡 × 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃) 𝑑𝜃
𝑡
𝑑
+ (∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠) ≤ 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)
𝑑𝑡 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)
0 𝑡 0
𝑑 − (1 − 𝜇) ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀)
+ (∫ ∫ (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝜃) .
𝑑𝑡 −𝜏 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡)+𝜃 −𝜏
(28) × 𝑥̇ (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝜃) 𝑑𝜃

By Lemma 2, LMIs (23), (24), and (25) imply that ≤ 𝜏(𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡))𝑇 𝑀𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)

𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) = (𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀))𝑇 = 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) , (29) = 𝜏[(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))]𝑇
× 𝑀 [(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))]
which shows
= 𝜏𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡)
𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) = 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) = 𝐸 (𝜀) . (30)
+ 𝜏2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀𝐷𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
Then
+ 𝜏𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) .
−𝑇 −1
𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) = 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍 (𝜀) . (31) (32)
Therefore, taking the derivative of 𝑉(𝑥𝑡 ) along the trajec-
Consequently,
tories of the system (22), we have
󵄨
𝑑 𝑇 𝑉̇ (𝑥𝑡 )󵄨󵄨󵄨󵄨(22) ≤ 2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡)
(𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡))
𝑑𝑡
+ 2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
𝑇 −1 𝑇 −𝑇
= 𝑥̇ (𝑡) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)
− (1 − 𝜇) 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
𝑇
= 𝑥̇ 𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡) + (𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡)
× 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
𝑇
= 2(𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)) 𝐸 (𝜀) 𝑥̇ (𝑡) + 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝑡) 𝑥 (𝑡)
𝑇
= 2(𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑡)) [(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))] + 𝜏𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡)
+ 𝜏2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀𝐷𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
= 2𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑥 (𝑡)
𝑇 −𝑇
+ 𝜏𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
+ 2𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) ,
= 𝜉𝑇 (𝑡) 𝐺 (𝜀) 𝜉 (𝑡) ,
𝑡
𝑑
(∫ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑠) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑥 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠) (33)
𝑑𝑡 𝑡−𝑑(𝑡) 𝑇
where 𝜉(𝑡) = (𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑)) ,
𝑇 −𝑇 −1
= 𝑥 (𝑡) 𝑍 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑍 (𝑡) 𝑥 (𝑡)
Ξ 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷 + 𝜏(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀𝐷
𝐺 (𝜀) = [ ], (34)
− (1 − 𝑑̇ (𝑡)) 𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑍
𝑇 −𝑇
(𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) ∗ Π
with
× 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
Ξ = 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) + (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑍−1 (𝜀)
≤ 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝑡) 𝑥 (𝑡)
+ 𝜏(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) + 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) ,
− (1 − 𝜇) 𝑥𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡))
Π = − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) + 𝜏𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷.
× 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) 𝑥 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) , (35)
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

By defining

𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) + (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑍−1 (𝜀) + 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷
𝑌=[ ], (36)
∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀)

algebraic manipulation gives Now comes the validation that 𝐺(𝜀) < 0, by the Schur com-
plement, which is equivalent to
𝜏(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝜏 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀𝐷
𝐺 (𝜀) = 𝑌 + [ ]
∗ 𝜏𝐷𝑇 𝑀𝐷

𝜏(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝜏(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑀𝐷 Θ 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷 (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇

=𝑌+[ ] [∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑄𝑍 (𝜀)
−𝑇 −1
𝐷𝑇 ] < 0,
∗ 𝜏𝐷𝑇𝑀𝐷 −1 −1
(38)
[∗ ∗ −𝜏 𝑀 ]
(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇
=𝑌+[ ] 𝜏𝑀 [𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾 𝐷]
𝐷𝑇

(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 −1 where Θ = 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀)(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) + (𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾)𝑇 𝑍−1 (𝜀) + 𝑍−𝑇 (𝜀)
=𝑌−[ ] (−𝜏−1 𝑀−1 ) [𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾 𝐷] . 𝑄𝑍−1 (𝜀).
𝐷𝑇
Pre- and postmultiplying (38) with diag{𝑍𝑇 (𝜀), 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀), 𝐼}
(37) and its transpose, respectively, we obtain

(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑍 (𝜀) + [(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑍 (𝜀)]𝑇 + 𝑄 𝐷𝑍 (𝜀) [(𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾) 𝑍 (𝜀)]𝑇

[ ∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑇 ]
−1 −1
[ ∗ ∗ −𝜏 𝑀 ]
(39)
𝐴𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝐵𝐾𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + [𝐵𝐾𝑍 (𝜀)]𝑇 + 𝑄 𝐷𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + [𝐵𝐾𝑍 (𝜀)]𝑇
=[ ∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐷𝑇 ] < 0.
−1 −1
[ ∗ ∗ −𝜏 𝑀 ]

Defining

̃ = 𝐾𝑍 (𝜀) ,
𝐾 ̃ = 𝑀−1 ,
𝑀 (40)

we can obtain

̃ + 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵
𝐴𝑍 (𝜀) + 𝐵𝐾 ̃ 𝑇 + 𝑄 𝐷𝑍 (𝜀) 𝑍𝑇 (𝜀) 𝐴𝑇 + 𝐾𝐵
̃ 𝑇
̃ (𝜀) = [
𝐺 ∗ − (1 − 𝜇) 𝑄 𝑇
𝑍 (𝜀) 𝐷 𝑇 ] < 0. (41)
−1 ̃
[ ∗ ∗ −𝜏 𝑀 ]

̃ < 0 and 𝐺(𝜀)

It follows from (26) that 𝐺(0) ̃ < 0. Then, by Remark 9. It follows from LMIs (23) and (24) that 𝑍1 and
̃ < 0,
Lemma 1, we have that inequality (41) holds, that is, 𝐺(𝜀) 𝑍2 are nonsingular matrices, which guarantees that 𝑍(0) is
which is equivalent to 𝐺(𝜀) < 0. Then ̃ −1 (𝜀) is well defined for ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀].
nonsingular. Then 𝐾 = 𝐾𝑍

Remark 10. In [20], the synthesis of SPSs with multiple time

󵄨
𝑉̇ (𝑥𝑡 )󵄨󵄨󵄨󵄨(22) < 0. (42) delays was considered. The proposed method depends on the
separation of the original system into fast and slow subsys-
tems and therefore cannot be applied to nonstandard SPSs. In
This implies that the closed-loop system (22) is asymptotically [23], an LMI-based controller design method was proposed.
stable for ∀𝜀 ∈ (0, 𝜀] with the gain matrix 𝐾 = 𝐾𝑍̃ −1 (𝜀). This But it did not consider the stability bound of the closed-
completes the proof. loop system. Using Theorem 8, a stabilization bound can be
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Table 1: Stability bounds of Example 11.

𝜇 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.65

𝜀 0.4999 0.3924 0.2636 0.1027 0.0557

Table 2: Comparison of the number of decision variables and lines of the LMI conditions.

Theorem 3 Theorem 3 of [21] Corollary 5 Theorem 6 in [21]

Variables 11 61 8 9
Lines 17 78 15 18

achieved by the proposed state feedback controller. Moreover, developed methods can produce the same stability bound
it is easy to see that no system separation is required in our with reduced computational cost than the existing method in
results and the conditions obtained in Theorem 8 have turned [21].
out to deal with both standard and nonstandard SPSs.
Example 12. We now apply the proposed approach in
Theorem 8 to find a state feedback controller to stabilize
system (1) with
3. Examples
In this section, we provide two examples to demonstrate the 1 1 1 0 0
𝐴=[ ], 𝐷=[ ], 𝐵 = [ ]. (46)
validity and the advantage of the proposed results in this −2 0 0 0.5 1
paper.
Letting 𝜏 = 5, 𝜇 = 0.2, and 𝜀 = 0.4 and using Theorem 8,
Example 11. Consider the following system with time-vary- we obtain
ing delay:
𝑍1 = 0.0439, 𝑍2 = 0.1801, 𝑍3 = 0.0689,
𝑥̇ 1 (𝑡) = 𝑥2 (𝑡) + 𝑥1 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) , 𝑍4 = 0.0548, 𝑍5 = −0.1787,
(43)
𝜀𝑥̇ 2 (𝑡) = −𝑥2 (𝑡) + 0.5𝑥2 (𝑡 − 𝑑 (𝑡)) − 2𝑥1 (𝑡) . 1.3566 −0.3795
̃ = [0.1713 −0.4163] ,
𝐾 𝑀=[ ],
−0.3795 2.1505
This system can be transformed into system (8) with
0.1119 −0.0772
0 1 1 0 𝑄=[ ].
𝐴=[ ], 𝐷=[ ]. (44) −0.0772 0.2276
−2 −1 0 0.5
(47)
Solving the LMI conditions of Theorem 3 with 𝜀 = 0.4482,
Then the controller gain is as follows:
𝜏 = 0.55, and 𝜇 = 0.1, we obtain
𝐾 = [0.1713 −0.4163]
𝑍1 = 3.5345, 𝑍2 = 1.8589, 𝑍3 = 4.0958,
−1 (48)
𝑍4 = 1.9564, 𝑍5 = 2.9219, 0.0439 + 0.0689𝜀 −0.1787𝜀
×[ ] .
−0.1787 0.1801 + 0.0548𝜀
5.5894 1.3679 0.0120 −0.0040
𝑄=[ ], 𝑀=[ ].
1.3679 1.4026 −0.0040 0.0130 By Theorem 8, the closed-loop system is stable for any 0 ≤
(45) ̇ ≤ 0.2, and any 𝜀 ∈ (0, 0.4].
𝑑(𝑡) ≤ 5, 𝑑(𝑡)

Then by Theorem 3, the sys- This example shows that Theorem 8 can be applied to
tem is stable for any delay satis- nonstandard SPSs with time-varying delay.
fying 0 ≤ 𝑑(𝑡) ≤ 5.5, 𝑑(𝑡)̇ ≤ 0.1, and any 𝜀 ∈ (0, 0.4482]. We
found that the largest stability bound obtained by Theorem
3 of [21] is also 0.4482 when the involved time delay satisfies 4. Conclusion
̇ ≤ 0.1.
0 ≤ 𝑑(𝑡) ≤ 5.5, 𝑑(𝑡)
When the time delay involved in this example satisfies In this paper, we have investigated the problems of stability
̇ ≤ 𝜇 < 1, by Corollary 5, the stability bounds
𝑑(𝑡) ≥ 0 and 𝑑(𝑡) bound analysis and design for singularly perturbed systems
for different 𝜇 are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the with time-varying delay. The results extend and improve the
results are the same to those given by Theorem 6 in [21]. existing works. A new form of Lyapunov-Krasovskii func-
From Table 2, Theorem 3 and Corollary 5 in the present tional has been constructed to improve delay-dependent sta-
paper need less computational cost than Theorems 3 and 6 bility analysis and design methods for SPSs with time-varying
of [21], respectively. Therefore, it can be seen that the newly delay. Using the analysis methods, the stability bound of the
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

SPSs can be computed. By the design methods, a given sta- [15] S. B. Stojanovic and J. Debel, “Delay-dependent stability analysis
bility bound can be achieved. The proposed methods do not for discrete-time systems with time varying state delay,” Chem-
depend on the system decomposition and therefore can be ical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly, vol. 17, pp.
applied to both standard and nonstandard SPSs with time- 497–504, 2011.
varying delays. The numerically examples have illustrated the [16] L. L. Liu, J. P. Peng, and B. W. Wu, “Robust stability of singularly
advantages and effectiveness of the proposed methods. perturbed systems with state delays,” in Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Information Security and Application
(IWISA ’09), pp. 19–21, Qingdao, China, November 2009.
Acknowledgments [17] E. Fridman, “Effects of small delays on stability of singularly
perturbed systems,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 897–902,
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation 2002.
of China (60904009, 60904079, 60974004, and 61020106003) [18] L. L. Liu, J. G. Peng, and B. W. Wu, “Delay-dependent criteria
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Univer- for robust stability of singularly perturbed systems with delays,”
sities (N100406010 and N110408001). in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational
and Information Sciences (ICCIS ’10), pp. 1–4, December 2010.
References [19] J.-S. Chiou, “Stability bound of discrete multiple time-delay
singularly perturbed systems,” International Journal of Systems
[1] C. Yang and Q. Zhang, “Multiobjective control for T-S fuzzy Science, vol. 37, no. 14, pp. 1069–1076, 2006.
singularly perturbed systems,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy [20] P.-L. Liu, “Stabilization of singularly perturbed multiple-time-
Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 104–115, 2009. delay systems with a saturating actuator,” International Journal
[2] H. Liu, F. Sun, K. He, and Z. Sun, “Survey of singularly per- of Systems Science, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1041–1045, 2001.
turbed control systems: theory and applications,” Journal of [21] W.-H. Chen, S.-T. Yang, X. Lu, and Y. Shen, “Exponential
Control Theory and Applications, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2003. stability and exponential stabilization of singularly perturbed
[3] S. He, F. Da, and W. You, “Research advances of time-delay con- stochastic systems with time-varying delay,” International Jour-
trol theory,” Journal of Nanjing University of Science and Technol- nal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 20, no. 18, pp. 2021–
ogy, vol. 29, pp. 132–136, 2005. 2044, 2010.
[4] S. Cong and Z. Sheng, “On exponential stability conditions of [22] P. Mei, C. X. Cai, and Y. Zou, “Stability analysis for singularly
descriptor systems with time-varying delay,” Journal of Applied perturbed systems with time-varying delay,” Journal of Nanjing
Mathematics, vol. 2012, Article ID 532912, 12 pages, 2012. University of Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 297–301,
[5] M. da la Sen, “Quadratic stability and stabilization of switched 2009.
dynamic systems with uncommensurate internal point delays,” [23] Z. H. Shao, “Stability bounds of singularly perturbed delay
Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 185, no. 1, pp. 508– systems,” IEE Proceedings, vol. 151, pp. 585–588, 2004.
526, 2007. [24] J.-H. Kim, “Robust stability of linear systems with delayed
[6] V. Y. Glizer, “Euclidean space controllability of singularly per- perturbations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 41,
turbed linear systems with state delay,” Systems & Control no. 12, pp. 1820–1822, 1996.
Letters, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 181–191, 2001. [25] P. Suthee and K. Furuta, “Memoryless stabilization of uncertain
[7] V. Y. Glizer, “Observability of singularly perturbed linear time- linear systems including time-varying state delays,” IEEE Trans-
dependent differential systems with small delay,” Journal of actions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 460–462, 1989.
Dynamical and Control Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 329–363, 2004. [26] Y.-Y. Cao and Y.-X. Sun, “Robust stabilization of uncertain
[8] V. Y. Glizer, “Novel controllability conditions for a class of systems with time-varying multistate delay,” IEEE Transactions
singularly-perturbed systems with small state delays,” Journal on Automatic Control, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1484–1488, 1998.
of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 135– [27] M. De la Sen, “On positivity of singular regular linear time-
156, 2008. delay time-invariant systems subject to multiple internal and
[9] V. Y. Glizer and E. Fridman, “Stability of singularly perturbed external incommensurate point delays,” Applied Mathematics
functional-differential systems: spectrum analysis and LMI and Computation, vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 382–401, 2007.
approaches,” IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Infor- [28] S. L. Campbell, “A general form for solvable linear time varying
mation, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 79–111, 2012. singular systems of differential equations,” SIAM Journal on
[10] V. Y. Glizer and E. Fridman, “𝐻∞ control of linear singularly Mathematical Analysis, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1101–1115, 1987.
perturbed systems with small state delay,” Journal of Mathemat-
ical Analysis and Applications, vol. 250, no. 1, pp. 49–85, 2000.
[11] D. W. Luse, “Multivariable singularly perturbed feedback sys-
tems with time delay,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 990–994, 1987.
[12] Z. Shao and J. R. Rowland, “Stability of time-delay singularly
perturbed systems,” IEE Proceedings, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 111–113,
1995.
[13] S. T. Pan, F. H. Hsiao, and C. C. Teng, “Stability bound of multi-
ple time delay singularly perturbed systems,” Electronics Letters,
vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 1327–1328, 1996.
[14] Z. Shao, “Robust stability of singularly perturbed systems with
state delays,” IEE Proceedings, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 2–6, 2003.
Advances in Advances in Journal of Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Decision Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Algebra
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
[Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014

The Scientific International Journal of

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Differential Equations
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
[Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

[Link]

International Journal of Advances in

Combinatorics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
[Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014

Journal of Journal of Mathematical Problems Abstract and Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
[Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014

International
Journal of Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Discrete Mathematics
Sciences

Journal of International Journal of Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014

Function Spaces
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Optimization
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
[Link] Volume 2014 [Link] [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014 [Link] Volume 2014