Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics

Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2013, pp.10111018

Stability of nonlinearly-perturbed systems
with time varying delay using LMIs
S. Jeeva Sathya Theesar
1, 2
and P. Balasubramaniam
2,
1. Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia;
2. Department of Mathematics, Gandhigram Rural Institute-Deemed University, Gandhigram 624302, India
Abstract: This paper studies delay dependent robust stability and
the stabilization problem of nonlinear perturbed systems with time
varying delay. A new set of sufcient conditions for the stability
of open as well as close loop systems are obtained in the sense
of Lyapunov-Krasovskii. To reduce the conservatism, the work
exploits the idea of splitting the delay interval into multiple equal
regions so that less information on the time delay can be imposed
to derive the results. The derived criterion not only improves the
upper bounds of the time delay but also does not require the
derivative of the delay to be known at prior. Easily testable suf-
cient criteria are presented in terms of linear matrix inequalities. It
is shown that the derived conditions are very less conservative
while comparing the maximum allowable upper bound of delay
with the existing results in literature.
Keywords: delay dependent stability, time-varying delay, nonlin-
ear perturbations.
DOI: 10.1109/JSEE.2013.00118
1. Introduction
During the past decades, a large amount of attention has
been dedicated to the study of systems with delays (for
details see [1,2] and references therein). The major two
classes of stability problems for the time delay system
(TDS) that have been investigated are based on delay-
dependent and delay-independent conditions. Note that for
a system whose stability does not depend on the time
delay, the analysis performed through delay-independent
conditions can be very conservative. Moreover, delay-
independent conditions cannot be obtained as a limiting
case of delay-dependent ones just by imposing the maxi-
mum delay value +, which leads to a gap between
these two types of delay stability conditions [2]. This mo-
tivates researchers to dwell into the study of the delay de-
pendent stability criterion [316].
Many signicant results have been reported in the li-
Manuscript received October 09, 2011.
*Corresponding author.
terature for the stability analysis. Mainly the following ap-
proaches have been developed in existing literature: aug-
mented Lyapunov-Krasovskii function (LKF) approach
[12], Jensen inequality approach [11], free-weighting ma-
trices approach [5,15], integral inequality approach using
Newton-Lebnitz formula [9], and LKFs on discritized de-
lay interval technique known as delay decomposition [17].
In practice, real systems usually present some uncertain-
ties due to environmental noise, uncertain or slowly vary-
ing parameters, etc. Therefore, the stability of TDS with
nonlinear perturbations has received increasing attention
[79,1315]. A model transformation method was used in
[7]. A bounding technique for some cross terms was pro-
posed in [8,9], the decomposition of the delay term system
matrix together with descriptor model transformation was
employed in [13]. Recently, delay-range-dependent stabi-
lity criteria were developed by introducing free-weighting
matrices and free-weighting parameters in [15]. As we
know, bounding technique or model transformation or free
weighting matrices (or slack variable matrices) may in-
crease the conservatism.
This situation motivates us with the fact that there exists
still more room in obtaining less conservative and practi-
cally applicable stability and stabilization criteria for sys-
tems with nonlinear perturbations. In this paper, the work
extends the idea of splitting the delay interval into mul-
tiple equal regions [17] so that less information on the
time delay can be imposed to derive the results. This im-
proves the maximum allowable upper bounds (MAUB) of
the time delay as well as does not require the derivative
of the delay to be known at prior. One of the major merits
of constructing LKFs on decomposed intervals of the de-
lay limit is that neither free weighting matrices technique
nor model transformation is required in order to derive a
delay dependent criterion. In addition, the very strict con-
ditions on time varying delay, such as 0 (t) < 1,
are not necessary to derive the conditions. Also for inter-
1012 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2013
val time-varying delays, this method of constructing LKFs
can be extended without any issue. To the best of authors
knowledge, the stability and stabilization criterion for sys-
tems with nonlinear perturbation and time-varying delay
using LKFs constructed on the decomposed delay interval
has not been discussed in any of the previous literature. In
this study, the rst delay dependent stability problem of
TDS with nonlinear perturbation is presented followed by
the stabilization problem. The delay dependent sufciency
conditions are derived in terms of matrix inequalities. Al-
though the proposed stabilizing controller synthesis is LMI
conditions involving nonlinear matrix terms, the matrix
transformations for nonlinear terms are utilized to obtain
the results.
Some of the main advantages in the present study over
some existing ones are that constructed LKFs do not re-
quire any free weighting or slack matrices to obtain the re-
sults, and secondly reduction in conservatism can be easily
seen with relaxation on the derivative of time-varying de-
lay. While increasing the number of decompositions, one
can easily get a larger delay bound according to the com-
putational time. In order to justify the results of this pa-
per with existing literature, LMI criteria are numerically
solved in Matlab LMI Lab. To exhibit the contributions of
this paper and exemplify the proposed methodology, two
numerical examples are illustrated.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Problem
formulation is stated in Section 2. Main results are pre-
sented in Section 3. In Section 4, through examples, it is
illustrated that the proposed method considerably improves
the existing methods. Finally, Section 5 concludes the pa-
per.
Notations: The notations in this paper are quite stan-
dard. The superscript T denotes the transposition, and the
notation X Y (respectively, X > Y ), where X and
Y are symmetric matrices, means that X Y is posi-
tive semi-denite (respectively, positive denite). R
n
and
R
nn
denote n-dimensional Euclidean space and the set
of all n n real matrices, respectively. I is the iden-
tity matrix. The notation always denotes the symmetric
block in one symmetric matrix. Matrices, if not explicitly
stated, are assumed to have compatible dimensions. We
make > 0 and C([, 0]; R
n
) denotes the family of
continuous functions from [, 0] to R
n
with norm
= sup
0
. L
2
[0, ) stands for the space of
square integrable functions on [0, ).
2. Problem formulation
Consider the following class of TDS with nonlinear pertur-
bations
x(t) = Ax(t) +A
d
x(t (t)) +f(x(t), t) +
g(x(t (t)), t) +Bu(t) (1)
x() = (t), [, 0] (2)
where x(t) R
n
is the state, u(t) R
m
is the con-
trol input, (t) is the time varying state delay. Here the
system matrices, A, A
d
and B, are known real constant
matrices with appropriate dimensions. (t) is the continu-
ous vector valued initial function. Moreover, the functions
f(x(t), t) and g(x(t (t)), t) are unknown nonlinear
functions and denote the nonlinear perturbations with re-
spect to the current state x(t) and delayed state x(t(t)),
respectively. They satisfy that f(0, t) = 0, g(0, t) = 0,
and
f
T
(x(t), t)f(x(t), t)
2
1
x
T
(t)F
T
Fx(t) (3)
g
T
(x(t (t)), t)g(x(t (t)), t)

2
2
x
T
(t (t))G
T
Gx(t (t)) (4)
where
i
(i = 1, 2) are known scalars, F and Gare known
constant matrices. Initially, assume that only a little in-
formation about time varying delay is available and the
derivative of the delay is unknown. Let (t) be the bounded
continuous function such that 0 (t) . The main aim
of the present study is to derive the control u(t) such that
the TDS (1)(2) is asymptotically stable. The state feed-
back control law is given by
u(t) = Kx(t) (5)
where K is the state feedback control gain to be deter-
mined. Now we state the following lemmas which will be
used in the sequel.
Lemma 1 [17] For any constant matrix X R
nn
,
X = X
T
> 0, scalar with 0 (t) and a vector-
valued function x : [t , t] R
n
, the following integra-
tion is well dened,
(t)

t
t(t)
x
T
(s)X x(s)ds
_
x(t)
x(t (t))
_
T

_
X X
X
_ _
x(t)
x(t (t))
_
. (6)
Lemma 2 [7] Schur complement. For a given matrix
S =
_
S
11
S
12
S
T
12
S
22
_
> 0, where S
11
= S
T
11
, S
12
= S
T
12
, is
equivalent to any one of the following conditions:
(i) S
22
> 0, S
11
S
12
S
1
22
S
T
12
> 0,
(ii) S
11
> 0, S
11
S
T
12
S
1
11
S
12
> 0.
S. Jeeva Sathya Theesar et al.: Stability of nonlinearly-perturbed systems with time varying delay using LMIs 1013
3. Main results
In this section, we present two new criteria for open loop
stability and close loop stability. The delay dependent suf-
cient criteria are provided in terms of matrix inequality
conditions.
3.1 Delay-dependent stability
Consider the open loop stability problem of (1)(2) with-
out the control input:
x(t) = Ax(t) +A
d
x(t (t))+
f(x(t), t) +g(x(t (t)), t) (7)
x() = (t), [, 0].
In this paper, based on the delay decomposition ap-
proach [17], LKFs are considered. Let be a known
real number. Choose the positive integer N such that
= /N. Hence the delay interval is decomposed as
[i, (i 1)], where i = 1, 2, . . . , N. Let x
t
(s) =
x(t + s), t s t. Now for t 0, let us construct
LKF on the decomposed intervals as
V (x
t
, t) = V
1
(x
t
, t) + V
2
(x
t
, t) (8)
where
V
1
(x
t
, t) = x
T
(t)Px(t)
V
2
(x
t
, t) =
N

=1
_

(1)

x
T
(t + ) Q

x(t + )d+

(1)

t
t+
x
T
() R

x()dd
_
with positive denite matrices of appropriate dimensions
P, Q

and R

. Based on the above LKF, sufcient condi-

tions for the open-loop delay dependent stability of (7) are
given in the following theorem.
Theorem 1 The open-loop TDS (7) with prescribed
nonlinear perturbations (3)(4) is asymptotically stable, if
there exist positive denite matrices P, Q

and R

, with
compatible dimensions for = 1, 2, . . . , N such that the
following LMI holds for u {1, 2, . . . , N},

u
=
_

11

12

13

14

15

22

23

24

25

33
0

35

44
0

55
_

_
< 0 (9)
where

11
= 2R
u

12
=
_
A
T
d
P 0 R
u
R
u
0 0

13
=
_
0 0

22
=
_

_

1
R
1
0 0 0 0

2
0 0 0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

u
0 0 0

(u+1)
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

N
R
N

(N+1)
_

23
=
_

_
P P
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
_

_
,

33
=
_

1
I 0

2
I
_

14
=
2

2
G,

24
=
1

1
F,

44
=
1
I
2
I

=
_
_
_
A
T
P +PA
T
+Q
1
R
1
, = 1
Q

Q
1
R

R
1
, = 2, . . . , N
Q
N
R
N
, = N + 1

15
= A
T
d
R,

25
=
_
A
T
R
0
(N1)
_
,

35
=
_
R
R
_

55
= R.
Proof Consider the LKF dened in (8). Taking the
time derivative of (8) yields

V
1
(x
t
, t) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +x
T
(t)P x(t) (10)

V
2
(x
t
, t) =
N

=1
(x
T
(t ( 1))Q

x(t ( 1))
x
T
(t )Q

x(t )) +
2
x
T
(t)R x(t)
N

=1

t(1)
t
x
T
()R

x()d (11)
where R =
N

=1
R

. For time varying delay, one can

exhibit u such that u {1, 2, . . . , N} for (t)
[u, (u 1)]. Then by Lemma 1, we have

t(u1)
tu
x
T
()R
u
x()d
_
x(t (t))
x(t u)
_
T
_
R
u
R
u
R
u
_ _
x(t (t))
x(t u)
_
+
1014 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2013
_
x(t (u 1))
x(t (t))
_
T
_
R
u
R
u
R
u
_

_
x(t (u 1))
x(t (t))
_
. (12)
When = u again by using Lemma 1, it is easy to get

t(1)
t
x
T
()R

x()d
_
x(t ( 1))
x(t )
_
T
_
R

_
x(t ( 1))
x(t )
_
. (13)
On the other hand, for any scalars
1
0 and
2
0, it is
easy to obtain that

1
[
2
1
x
T
(t)F
T
Fx(t) f
T
(x(t), t)f(x(t), t)] 0 (14)

2
[
2
2
x
T
(t (t))G
T
Gx(t (t))
g
T
(x(t (t)), t)g(x(t (t)), t)] 0. (15)
Now accumulating from (7) and (10)(15), we have

V (x
t
, t) x
T
(t)[A
T
P +PA]x(t) +x
T
(t (t))
A
T
d
Px(t) +x
T
(t)PA
d
x(t (t))+
f
T
(x(t), t)Px(t) +x
T
(t)Pf(x(t), t)+
g
T
(x(t (t)), t)Px(t) +x
T
(t)Pg(x(t (t)), t)+
x
T
(t)Q
1
x(t) x
T
(t N)Q
N
x(t N)+
N1

=1
[x
T
(t )(Q
+1
Q

)x(t )]+
_
x(t (t))
x(t u)
_
T
_
R
u
R
u
R
u
_ _
x(t (t))
x(t u)
_
+
_
x(t (u 1))
x(t (t))
_
T
_
R
u
R
u
R
u
_

_
x(t (u 1))
x(t (t))
_
+
N

=1,=u
_
x(t ( 1))
x(t )
_
T

_
R

_ _
x(t ( 1))
x(t )
_
+

2
x
T
(t)R x(t) +
1
[
2
1
x
T
(t)F
T
Fx(t)
f
T
(x(t), t)f(x(t), t)] +
2
[
2
2
x
T
(t (t))G
T
G
x(t (t)) g
T
(x(t (t)), t)g(x(t (t)), t)]. (16)
Let

(t) = [x(t (t)) x(t) x(t ) . . . x(t N)

f(x(t), t)g(x(t (t)), t)]. The above inequality (16) can
be rewritten as

V (x
t
, t)
T
(t)[
u
+
T

2
R]

(t) (17)
where
u
=
_

11

12

13

14

22

23

24

33
0

44
_

_
, the terms are

11
= 2R
u
,

13
=
_
0 0

14
=
2

2
G

12
=
_
A
T
d
P 0 R
u
R
u
0 0

22
=
_

_

1
R
1
0 0 0 0

2
0 0 0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

u
0 0 0

(u+1)
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

N
R
N

(N+1)
_

23
=
_

_
P P
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
_

_
,

33
=
_

1
I 0

2
I
_

24
=
1

1
F,

44
=
1
I
2
I

=
_
_
_
A
T
P +PA
T
+Q
1
R
1
, = 1
Q

Q
1
R

R
1
, = 2, . . . , N
Q
N
R
N
, = N + 1
=
_
A
T
d
A
T
0
(N1)
I I 0 0

T
.
Now

V (x
t
, t) 0 if and only if

u
0, where

u
=
u
+
T

2
R < 0. (18)
Applying the Schur complement formula on (18) yields
(9). Thus, by using the Lyapunov-Krasovskii theorem [1],
we can conclude that (7) is asymptotically stable.
3.2 Stabilization criteria
In this section, we present a stability criterion for close
loop systems when control input (5) is applied. The close
loop model is given as
x(t) = (A+BK) x(t) +A
d
x(t (t))+
f(x(t), t) +g(x(t (t)), t). (19)
S. Jeeva Sathya Theesar et al.: Stability of nonlinearly-perturbed systems with time varying delay using LMIs 1015
The stabilization criterion for the above model (19) is pre-
sented in the following theorem.
Theorem2 The close loop TDS (19) is asymptotically
stabilizable with the control law (5), if there exist positive
denite matrices

P,

Q

and

R

, with compatible dimen-

sions for = 1, 2, . . . , N such that the following LMI
holds for u {1, 2, . . . , N}

u
=
_

11

12

13

14

15

22

23

24

25

33
0
35

44
0

55
_

_
< 0 (20)
where
11
= 2

R
u
,
13
=
_
0 0

22
=
_

1

R
1
0 0 0 0

2
0 0 0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

u
0 0 0

(u+1)
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

N

R
N

(N+1)
_

23
=
_

P

P
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0
_

_
,
33
=
_

1
I 0

2
I
_

14
=
2

2
G,

44
=
1
I
2
I

15
=

PA
T
d
,
35
=
_

P
_

12
=
_

PA
T
d
0

R
u

R
u
0 0

24
=
1

1
F,
25
=
_
(

PA
T
+Y
T
B
T
)
0
(N1)
_

55
=

R 2

P,

R =
N

=1

(1)

=
_

_
A

P+

PA
T
+Y
T
B
T
+BY +

Q
1

R
1
, =1

Q
1


R

R
1
, = 2, . . . , N

Q
N


R
N
, = N + 1
.
Moreover the suitable state feedback controller is u(t) =
Kx(t) = Y

P
1
x(t).
Proof Let

A = A+BK, then from LMI (9), we
get

u
except the term
1
= A
T
P + PA
T
+
KB
T
P + PBK + Q
1
R
1
. It is clearly seen that

u
< 0 is not an LMI, as it involves various nonlin-
ear matrix terms. Pre- and post- multiplying

u
with
diag
_
P
1
P
1
P
1
P
1
P
1
R
1
_
and let

P = P
1
,

Q

=

PQ

P,

R

=

PR

P,
1
=

P
1

P,

2
=

P
2

P, and the control gain matrices satisfying
K = Y

P
1
, one gets LMI

u
which is given in (20)
with exception that

55
=

R
1
. Taking R
1
=

P

R
1

P

R 2

P the LMI given in (20) can be

obtained.
Remark 1 The LMIs (9) and (20) are obtained as suf-
cient conditions for open loop stability and close loop sta-
bility by using Lyapunov-Krasovskiii stability theory. By
utilizing the idea of splitting the delay interval into multi-
ple equal regions, the LMIs contain variables correspond-
ing to each interval. The derived criterion not only im-
proves the upper bounds of the time delay but also does not
require the derivative of the delay to be known at prior. The
easily testable sufcient criteria are presented in terms of
linear matrix inequalities which can be solved by Matlab
LMI Lab or Yalmip using SeDuMi solvers.
Remark 2 On availability of more information on
derivative of the time varying delay (t) , add the fol-
lowing LKF to (8) in order to derive the sufcient criterion.
V
3
(x
t
, t) =

t
t(t)
x
T
() U x() d (21)
where U > 0. Moreover, the very strict restriction, e.g.,
(t) < 1, is not required. For this case, the criteria are
given in terms of the following corollaries. Derivation of
LMI conditions with above LKFs is similar to the method-
ology used in above theorems, hence it is omitted. Detailed
numerical analysis by implementing the relaxed conditions
is presented in the next section.
Corollary 1 The open-loop TDS (7) with prescribed
nonlinear perturbations (3)(4) is asymptotically stable
with (t) , if there exist positive denite matrices P,
Q

and R

of compatible dimensions for = 1, 2, . . . , N

such that the following LMI holds for u {1, 2, . . . , N}

u
=

u
+ diag {(1 )U, U, 0, . . . , 0} < 0. (22)
Corollary 2 The closed-loop TDS (19) is asympto-
tically stabilizable with control law (5) and (t) , if
there exist positive denite matrices

P,

Q

and

R

with
compatible dimensions for = 1, 2, . . . , N such that the
following LMI holds for u {1, 2, . . . , N}

u
=

u
+ diag {(1 )U, U, 0, . . . , 0} < 0. (23)
1016 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2013
3.3 Comparisons with delay-dividing approach
In recent literature, the commonly used discritized Lya-
punov function techniques are based on delay decompo-
sition [17] and delay-dividing (also known as delay par-
titioning) [18] approaches. In this paper, the idea of the
delay decomposition approach has been extended to sta-
bilization of nonlinearily-perturbed systems. On the other
hand, the stability of neutral systems with nonlinear pertur-
bation has been studied in [18] based on the delay divid-
ing approach. In this method, in order to derive the maxi-
mum allowable delay for stability, (t) is divided into se-
veral components by an integer N with the length of each
component denoted by h(t) such that h(t) =
(t)
N
and
corresponding LKFs are constructed accordingly. In this
method, the existence of derivative of time varying delay
is required which is more conservative, this is the special
case of the delay decomposition approach. On the other
hand, in the delay decomposition approach, the maximum
delay is divided by N such that = /N. For the con-
stant delay case, two approaches are similar. However due
to Lemma 1, the delay decomposition approach leads to
very less conservative results.
4. Numerical examples
In this section, we give two numerical examples in order to
compare several existing criteria and those results obtained
in this paper. For the sake of the comparison purpose, nu-
merical simulations are done with Matlab.
Example 1 Consider the following nonlinear system
with time varying delay:
x(t) = Ax(t) +A
d
x(t (t)) +
_

1
cos t |x
1
(t)|

2
sin t |x
2
(t)|
_
+
_

1
cos t |x
1
(t (t))|

2
sin t |x
2
(t (t))|
_
+Bu(t) (24)
where A =
_
1.2 0.1
0.1 1
_
, A
d
=
_
0.6 0.7
1 0.8
_
, B =
_
0
1
_
, |
i
|
1
, and |
i
|
2
for i = 1, 2. Clearly we
have f(x(t), t)
1
x(t) and g(x(t (t)), t)

2
x(t (t)). Consider the state feedback control of
(5). For this example,
1
= 0.1 and
2
= 0.1 are xed. In-
stantly according to the available information on time de-
lay, the following three cases can be considered. Firstly,
it is constant time delay; secondly, time varying delay
with derivative of the delay is known; nally, the case in
which the derivative of the time varying delay does not
exist. The obtained MAUBs of time delays along with the
control gains are presented in Table 1. It is clearly seen
that the estimated control gain is very less with very high
MAUBs and of practical interest. More over authors in
[7,9,10,13,14] have studied only stability problem for this
model, hence those results are not suitable for stabilization
problems. The visualization of the state trajectories with
and without control input is presented in Figs. 13.
Table 1 Allowable upper bounds of time delays and Control Gains
in Example 1 for different conditions
Delay( and (t)) N = 2 N = 3 N = 4
Constant

0.275 1
0.207 7

0.217 2
0.252 4

1.909
0.264 0

( = 0) 2.433 2 3.635 4 4.844 8

Time-varying

0.679 5
0.770 3

0.511 2
0.967 6

0.416 1
1.077 3

( = 0.5) 2.024 2 2.934 9 3.837 6

Time-varying

0.980 7
1.319 5

0.735 9
2.965 1

0.146 8
5.114

( unknown) 1.339 0 1.542 0 1.646 4

Fig. 1 Open loop state trajectories of (24) with nonlinear perturba-
tions
Fig. 2 State trajectories of closed loop system (24)
S. Jeeva Sathya Theesar et al.: Stability of nonlinearly-perturbed systems with time varying delay using LMIs 1017
Fig. 3 Control applied for stabilizing nonlinear perturbed model
(24)
Example 2 Consider the above model without the
control input term. Table 2 and Table 3 present MAUB
of time-delay under different values of and
1
= 0,

2
= 0.1. It is easy to observe that the results obtained
from this paper provide the less conservative results than
the previous results [7,9,10,1315].
Table 2 Comparison of MAUB for constant time delay
Existing results
1
= 0,
2
= 0.1
1
= 0.1,
2
= 0.1
Reference [7] 0.681 1 0.612 9
Reference [13] 1.327 9 1.250 3
Reference [10] 2.742 1.875
Reference [14] 2.742 2 1.875 3
Reference [9] 2.775 8 1.895 9
This paper 3.855 9 2.566 5
Table 3 Comparison of MAUB for time varying delay
Existing results = 0.5 = 1.1 is unknown
Reference [7] 0.546
Reference [13] 0.674
Reference [14] 1.142 0.735
Reference [15] 1.442 1.280 Not feasible
This paper 1.573 5 1.380 0 1.453 2
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a newdelay-dependent stability and stabiliza-
tion criterion is proposed for the systems with time-varying
delay and nonlinear perturbations. The derived results are
in the form of LMI which can be solved easily by the inte-
rior point algorithm utilized in Matlab LMI Toolbox. Nu-
merical examples clearly show that the proposed results
are very less conservative and have larger time delay upper
bounds than the existing results in the literature.
References
[1] K. Gu, V. Kharitonov, J. Chen. Stability of time delay sys-
tems. Boston: Birkhauser, 2003.
[2] S. I. Nicluescu, K. Gu. Advances in time-delay systems. Lon-
don: Springer, 2004.
[3] V. Kolmanovskii, J. Richard. Stability of some linear systems
with delays. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 1999, 44(5):
984989.
[4] Y. S. Moon, P. Park, W. H. Kwon, et al. Delay-dependent ro-
bust stabilization of uncertain state-delayed systms. Interna-
tional Journal of Control, 2001, 74(14): 14471455.
[5] Y. He, Q. Wang, L. Xie, et al. Further improvement of free-
weighting matrices technique for systems with time varying
delay. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 2007, 52(2): 293
299.
[6] M. Parlakci. Robust stability of uncertain time-varying state-
delayed systems. IEE Proceedings of Control Theory and Ap-
plications, 2006, 153(4): 469477.
[7] Y. Y. Cao, J. Lam. Computation of robust stability bounds for
time-delay systems with nonlinear time-varying perturbations.
International Journal System Science, 2005, 31(3): 359365.
[8] O. M. Kwon, J. H. Park. Matrix inequality approach to novel
stability criterion for time-delay systems with nonlinear un-
certainties. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications,
2005, 126(3): 643656.
[9] O. M. Kwon, J. H. Park, S. M. Lee. On robust stability critrion
for dynamic systems with time-varying delays and nonlinear
perturbations. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2008,
203(2): 937942.
[10] J. Zhang, P. Shi, J. Qiu. Robust stability criteria for uncer-
tain neutral systems with time delay and nonlinear uncertain-
ties. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2008, 38(1): 160167.
[11] T. Li, L. Guo, Y. Zhang. Delay-range-dependend robust sta-
bility and stabilization of uncertain systems with time varying
delay. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,
2008, 18(13): 13721387.
[12] C. Peng, Y. Tian. Delay dependent robust stability criteria for
uncertain systems with interval time varying delay. Journal of
Computational and Applied Mathematics, 2008, 214(2): 480
494.
[13] Q. L. Han. Robust stability for a class of linear systems
with time-varying delay and nonlinear perturbations. Com-
puter Mathematics and Applications, 2004, 47(8/9): 1201
1209.
[14] Z. Zuo, Y. Wang. New stability criterion for a class of li-
near systems with time-varying delay and nonlinear pertur-
bations. IEE Proceedings of Control Theory and Application,
2006, 153(5): 623626.
[15] W. Zhang, X. S. Cai, Z. Han. Robust stabibility criteria for
systems with interval time-varying delay and nonlinear pertur-
bations. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
2010, 234(1): 174180.
[16] E. K. Boukas. Free-weighting matrices delay dependent sta-
bilization for systems with time-varying delays. ICIC Express
Letters, 2008, 2(2): 167173.
[17] X. M. Zhang, Q. L. Han. A delay decomposition approach to
delay dependent stability for linear systems with time-varying
delays. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Con-
trol, 2009, 19(17): 19221930.
1018 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2013
Biographies
S. Jeeva Sathya Theesar received his B.S. degree in
mathematics from Bharathiar University, Coimbat-
ore, India in 2005 and M.S. degree in mathematics
from Loyola College, Chennai under University of
Madras in 2007. From August 2007 to August 2008,
he was a programmer in Cognizant Technology So-
lutions, an IT concern based in New York USA. He
was awarded Ph.D. in 2013 in the eld of mathe-
matics entilted synchronization and estimation of delayed dynamical sys-
tems from the Department of Mathematics, Gandhigram Rural Institute-
Deemed University, Gandhigram, India. At present, he is working as a
post doctoral fellow in the Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Mathemati-
cal Science, University of Malaya, Malasiya. His current research inter-
ests include fuzzy systems, time delayed systems, and synchronization of
chaotic systems.
Email: sjstheesar@gmail.com
P. Balasubramaniam post graduated from the De-
partment of Mathematics of Gobi Arts College af-
liated to Bharathiar University, Coimbatore in the
year 1989. He was awarded M.S. degree of Philoso-
phy in 1990 and Ph.D. degree in 1994 in the eld of
mathematics with specialized area of control theory
from the Department of Mathematics, Bharathiar
University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Soon af-
ter his completion of Ph.D. degree, he served as lecturer in mathematics
in Kumaraguru College of Technology and also in Kongu Engineering
College for three years. Since 1997 he served as lecturer in mathematics
for four years and reader in mathematics for ve years in the Gandhigram
Rural University, Gandhigram, Tamilnadu, India. He is rendering his ser-
vices as a professor and head, Department of Mathematics, Gandhigram
Rural University, Gandhigram, Tamilnadu, India from 2006 till date. He
was selected as a visiting research professor during the year 2001 and
20052006 for promoting research in the eld of control theory and neu-
ral networks at Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea. He has
published 150 research papers in various SCI journals holding impact fac-
tors. He has served as a guest editor for few special issues of journals in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Now he is serving as an editor-in-chief
of Journal Modern Instrumentation (MI), Scientic Research Publishing,
USA. He is also serving as a reviewer for few SCI journals and member
of the editorial board of Journal of Computer Science. He has received
Tamilnadu Scientist Award (TANSA)-2005 for the discipline of mathe-
matical sciences from Tamilnadu State Council for Science and Technol-
ogy. His research interest includes control theory, stochastic differential
equations, soft computing, neural networks and chaos theory and cryp-
tography.
Email: balugru@gmail.com