129 views

Uploaded by maniahmad

Time delay systems

Time delay systems

© All Rights Reserved

- 048646248XEquationsB
- Robust Control and Filtering for Time Delay Systems Automation and Control Engineering
- Essentials+of+Robust+Control
- Sampled-Data Modeling and Analysis of PWM DC-DC Converters Part I Closed-Loop Circuits
- Artificial Intelligence in Education
- SCM - 2015
- Analysis and Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems.pdf
- A+SURVEY+ON+SEMI-TENSOR+PRODUCT+OF+MATRICES
- 2012
- A Case Study on the Impact of Automated Assessment in Engineering Mathematics
- Dazzo Sensitivity
- Transcritical Bifurcation
- Rob Perform10
- Time Analysis
- stab97
- Critical Speeds of Gyroscopes Course
- enocNMallon_ID120
- Lecture 11
- ROS04092002-13
- Discrete Competition Models

You are on page 1of 28

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

advances and open problems

Jean-Pierre Richard

Ecole Centrale de Lille, LAIL (CNRS UMR 8021), BP 48, 59651 Villeneuve dAscq, Cedex, France

Received 13 July 2001; received in revised form 24 March 2003; accepted 28 April 2003

Abstract

After presenting some motivations for the study of time-delay system, this paper recalls modi.cations (models, stability, structure)

arising from the presence of the delay phenomenon. A brief overview of some control approaches is then provided, the sliding mode

and time-delay controls in particular. Lastly, some open problems are discussed: the constructive use of the delayed inputs, the digital

implementation of distributed delays, the control via the delay, and the handling of information related to the delay value.

? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Delay systems; Aftere2ect; Dead-time; Functional di2erential equations

systems with aftere2ect or dead-time, hereditary systems,

equations with deviating argument or di2erential-di2erence

equations. They belong to the class of functional di/erential

equations (FDEs) which are in.nite dimensional, as opposed to ordinary di2erential equations (ODEs). It is not the

place here to recall the great number of monographs devoted

to this .eld of active research (at least 30 English-language

books since 1963); the reader can refer, for instance, to survey papers such as Conte and Perdon (1998), Kharitonov

(1998), Kolmanovskii, Niculescu, and Gu (1999a), Loiseau

(1998), Mirkin and Tadmor (2002), Niculescu, Verriest,

Dugard, and Dion (1997, Chap. 1), Olbrot (1998),

Richard (1998), Tsoi (1978, Chap. 5), and Watanabe,

Nobuyama, and Kojima (1996) or special issues such as

Dion, Dugard, and Niculescu (2001), Fridman and Shaked

(2003), Loiseau and Rabah (1997), Niculescu and Richard

(2002), and Richard and Kolmanovskii (1998). What can

motivate such a continuous interest and development?

(1) Aftere2ect is an applied problem: it is well known

that, together with the increasing expectations of dynamic

performances, engineers need their models to behave more

like the real process. Many processes include aftere2ect

phenomena in their inner dynamics. To name a few, the

monographs (Kolmanovskii & Myshkis, 1999; Niculescu,

2001) 1 give examples in biology, chemistry, economics,

mechanics, viscoelasticity, physics, physiology, population

dynamics, as well as in engineering sciences. In addition,

actuators, sensors, .eld networks that are involved in feedback loops usually introduce such delays. Thus, they are

strongly involved in challenging areas of communication

and information technologies: stability of networked controlled systems (Bushnell, 2001; Nilsson, Bernhardsson,

& Wittenmark, 1998), quality of service in MPEG video

transmission (MFerigot & Mounier, 2000) or high-speed

communication networks (Abdallah & Chiasson, 2001;

Biberovic, Iftar, & Ozbay, 2001; Bushnell, 2001; Izmailov,

1996; Mascolo, 1999; Mounier, Mboup, Petit, Rouchon, &

Seret, 1998; Quet, Ramakrishnan, Ozbay, & Kalyanaraman,

Workshop on Linear Time Delay Systems (Richard, 2000). This paper

was recommended for publication in revised form by Editor Manfred

Morari.

E-mail address: jean-pierre.richard@ec-lille.fr (J.-P. Richard).

control techniques. The present survey includes about 190 complementary references, which correspond either to recent papers, or to complementary topics as structural properties, variable structure control, digital

implementation, delay identi.cation, observers, etc.

0005-1098/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(03)00167-5

1668

Table 1

Models for delay systems

Discrete

Distrib.

Nonlin.

Refs.

Freq. domain

Rat. approx.

Yes

Yes

No

No

Richard (1998)

R[ ]

Ru ()

R[s; es ]

K[ ]

2-D

FDEs

dim.

Coms.

Coms.

Coms.

Coms.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

VanAssche, Dambrine,

Lafay, and Richard (1999)

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Picard, LaFay, and Kucera (1997)

GlMusing-LMuerNen (1997a) and Loiseau and BrethFe (1998)

Moog, Castro-Linares, Velasco-Villa, and Marquez-Martinez (2000)

Loiseau and BrethFe (1997a, b)

Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (1993) and Kolmanovskii and Nosov (1986)

Gorecki, Fuksa, Grabowski, and Korytowski (1989) and

Karrakchou and Rabah (1996)

(In Table 1: is the delay operator, s the Laplace operator. Models are de.ned over R[ ] (resp. R()) the ring of polynomials (resp., .eld of

rational fractions) in , over Ru () the ring of rational causal transfer functions in , over R[s; es ] (or E) the ring of quasi-polynomials. 2-D means

the two-operator Roesser models, and coms. stands for commensurate).

systems (Kim, Hannaford, & Bejczy, 1992; LelevFe, Fraisse

& Dauchez, 2001; Niemeyer & Slotine, 1998; Niemeyer,

1996), parallel computation (Abdallah et al., 2001), computing times in robotics (Ailon & Gil, 2000; Shin & Cui,

1995), etc. Finally, besides actual delays, time lags are frequently used to simplify very high order models. Then, the

interest for FDEs keeps on growing in all scienti.c areas

and, especially, in control engineering.

(2) Delay systems are still resistant to many classical controllers: one could think that the simplest approach

would consist in replacing them by some .nite-dimensional

approximations. Unfortunately, ignoring e2ects which are

adequately represented by FDEs is not a general alternative

(see Section 3): in the best situation (constant and known

delays), it leads to the same degree of complexity in the

control design. In worst cases (time-varying delays, for instance), it is potentially disastrous in terms of stability and

oscillations.

(3) Delay properties are also surprising since several studies have shown that voluntary introduction of delays can also

bene;t the control (for instance, for ODEs: damping and stabilization (Abdallah, Dorato, Benitez-Read, & Byrne, 1993;

Richard, Goubet, Tchangani, & Dambrine, 1997, Chap. 11)

delayed resonators (Jalili & Olgac, 1998), time-delay controllers and observers (see Section 5.4), nonlinear limit cycle

control (Aernouts, Roose, & Sepulchre, 2000), and deadbeat

control (Watanabe et al., 1996); for FDEs: .nite-spectrum

assignment (see Section 6.2).

(4) In spite of their complexity, TDS however often

appear as simple in.nite-dimensional models in the very

complex area of partial di2erential equations (PDE): as mentioned in Kolmanovskii and Myshkis (1992), it is usually

not diScult to show that the appearance of delay in a di2erential equation results of some essential simpli.cation of the

model. For instance, hyperbolic PDEs can be locally understood as neutral delay systems (Hale & Verduyn-Lunel,

1993; Kolmanovskii & Nosov, 1986) and, conversely, any

transport equation (along the length 1 with speed c = h1 ):

@

@

x(z; t) + x(z; t) = 0; z [0; 1];

@t

@z

x(0; t) = u(t); y(t) = x(1; t):

h

(1)

Other relations have been established with fractional derivation equations (Hotzel & Fliess, 1998). Many classes of

models have been proposed for delay systems: Table 1 gives

an overview of their domains of application.

2. A delay: what does it change?

2.1. Models and solutions

2.1.1. Forward and backward solutions of retarded

di/erential equations

A classical hypothesis in the modelling of physical processes is to assume that the future behavior of the deterministic system can be summed up in its present state only.

In the case of ODEs, the state is a n-vector x(t) moving in

Euclidean space Rn . Now, if one has to take into account an

irreducible inVuence of the past, leading to the introduction

of a deviated time-argument, then the state cannot anymore

be a vector x(t) de.ned at a discrete value of time t. For

instance, the simple delay equation

x(t)

= x(t h)

(2)

has several solutions that achieve the same value at an in.nite number of instants. 2 Thus, in FDEs, the state must be a

function xt corresponding to the past time-interval [t h; t],

where h is a positive, irreducible-to-zero constant. Vector

x(t) is the solution at time t.

2

is known to be stable until h = =2.

1669

continuation of the solution through (; ) if x = and,

for any 1 [ ; ]; (1 ; x1 ) and x is a solution of

(5) on [1 h; ] through (1 ; x1 ).

x(t)

= f(xt ; t; ut );

t t0 ;

(3)

y(t) = g(xt ; t; ut );

follows: being an open subset in R C, there is a solution

of (5) through (; ) if f is continuous (f C(; Rn )).

If in addition f(t; ) is Lipschitz in its second argument

in each compact set in , then the solution is unique. But,

in contrast to ODEs, for FDEs with arbitrary smooth righthand sides it may occur that originally di2erent solutions

coincide after some time. The following two examples, the

.rst taken from Kolmanovskii and Myshkis (1992, p. 47)

and the second from Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (1993, p. 71),

t2

x(t)

= x t

;

(6)

1 + t2

h 6 6 0;

x(t)

= x(t 1)[1 x2 (t)]

h 6 6 0;

for any initial function C with (0) = 1, exhibit the

same solution x(0; )(t); t 0 (x(0; )(t) = 0 for (6), =1

for (7)). In other words, two arbitrary solutions x1 and x2

such that x1 (0)=x2 (0)=1 will stick together for all t 0.

Note that, for (6), this holds for any x1 (0) = x2 (0).

As stated in Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (1993), the uniqueness of the backward continuation is ensured provided that

an additional property of atomicity is satis.ed. 4 Special

classes or RDEs can be considered: Eq. (5) is said to be

autonomous (or time-invariant) if f(t; ) = g(), where g

does not depend on t; linear if f(t; ) = L(t) + h(t), where

operator L(t) is linear; linear homogeneous if h 0; linear

time-invariant if f(t; ) = L. The following properties are

taken from Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (1993):

x() = ();

t0 h 6 6 t0 ;

(4)

C([ h; 0]; Rn ) of continuous functions mapping the interval [ h; 0] into Rn , with the topology of uniform

convergence. The initial condition must be prescribed as

: [ h; 0] Rn ( C, or may involve bounded jumps

at some discontinuity instants). For instance, take h = 1

in (2) and () 1. The use of the step-by-step method

initiated by Bellman 3 shows that the resulting solution x(t)

is a succession of polynomial functions of t, in increasing

degree at each interval [kh; (k + 1)h] (Fig. 1). The nature

of the solution (and of its initial value), then, distinguishes

FDEs from ODEs. Another distinction with ODEs arises

from the Cauchy problem which, for FDEs, has the usual

properties only forward in time. Before carrying on develop this distinction, let us precise the following notions

of solution and backward continuation.

Denition 1 (Hale & Verduyn-Lunel, 1993). A function x

is said to be a solution on [ h; + a] of the retarded

functional di2erential equation (RDE)

x(t)

= f(t; xt );

f: R C Rn

(5)

+a]; Rn ); (t; xt ) and x(t) satis.es Eq. (5) for t [h;

+ a]. For given R; C, we say x(; ; f) is a solution of (5) with initial value at or simply a solution

through (; ) if there is an a 0 such that x(; ; f) is

a solution of (5) on t [ h; + a] and x (; ; f) = .

Supposing that is open and f C(; Rn ), then a function

3

See Bellman and Cooke (1963, 1965, p. 45) and Kolmanovskii and

Myshkis (1992) or, for time-varying delay (Elsgolts & Norkin, 1973).

(7)

autonomous RDE is unique.

There may exist two distinct backward continuations on

] ; 0] for an autonomous RDE.

However, if f: C Rn is an analytic functional, the

bounded backward continuation on ] ; 0] is unique.

2.1.2. Neutral systems

FDEs as (3) or (5) are called retarded systems. Neutral

systems also are delay systems, but involve the same highest

derivation order for some components of x(t) at both time t

and past time(s) t t, which implies an increased mathematical complexity. Neutral systems are represented by

x(t)

= f(xt ; t; xt ; ut )

4

(8)

The atomicity speci.es the manner in which f(t; ) varies with (:).

A function f: Rn is atomic at on if f is continuous together

with its .rst and second FrFechet derivatives w.r.t. ; and f , the derivative

w.r.t. , is atomic at on (Hale & Verduyn-Lunel, 1993, p. 53).

1670

dFxt

Fx t =

= f(xt ; t; ut );

dt

(9)

with constant coeScients i R. Due to this simpli.cation, many authors investigated the particular case of

discrete-delay systems

k

systems) with deviating argument in time, as for instance

x(t)

=

h0 = 0 h1 hk1 hk

D constant matrix:

(10)

The solutions of retarded systems have their di2erentiability degree smoothed with increasing time (Fig. 1 and

Kolmanovskii and Myshkis (1992, p. 37), and Niculescu

(2001, p. 24). This property of solution smoothing is

no longer true for neutral systems: due to the implied

di2erence-equation involving x(t),

the trajectory may replicate any irregularity of the initial condition (t), even if f

and F satisfy many smoothness properties. This can cause

problem when applying step-by-step methods to neutral

systems (Bellen & Zennaro, 2001).

2.1.3. Models for LTI systems

In the linear, time-invariant case (abridged: LTI), the corresponding model is

q

x(t)

=

Dl x(t

!l )

l=1

k

r

j=1

y(t) =

k

i=0

t'j

Ci x(t hi ) +

r

j=1

t'j

Nj ()x() d;

x(t)

=

k

y(t) =

(14)

Ci x(t i);

(15)

i=0

k

k = h:

i=0

polynomial ring R[ ] (here, denotes the delay operator

: x(t) x(t) and for matrices Mi one de.nes M( ) ,

k

i

i=0 Mi ):

x(t)

= A( )x(t) + B( )u(t);

(16)

y(t) = C( )x(t);

(17)

B(
) Rnm [
];

C(
) Rpn [
]:

(11)

(11,12) (considering that all variables are equal to zero

before initial time t = 0) is straightforward if the kernel

matrices (Gj ; Hj ; Nj ) are constant ones:

(12)

Z

y(s)

Z = C(s)(sIn A(s))1 B(s)u(s);

phenomena; the sum of integrals corresponds to distributeddelay e2ects, weighted by Gj over the time intervals

[t 'j ; t]; matrices Di make the neutral part; Bi and Hj (s)

are input matrices. Here, h = maxi; j; l {hi ; 'j ; !l }. Eq. (12),

y(t) Rn , represents the output description, with discrete

Ci and distributed Nj () delayed parts as well.

Many physical systems can also be approximated by such

models (Mounier, Rouchon, & Rudolph, 1997) with, in most

cases, a single neutral delay (q = 1). Note that, in (11),

Gj Gk for some (j; k) makes it possible to consider

t'

discrete-plus-distributed e2ects such as t'jk Gj x() d.

Besides, some additional approximation 5 may allow the

distributed e2ects to be replaced by a sum of discrete ones

t

d

i'

'

i'

x t

G()x() d

i G

d

d

d

t'

i=1

(13)

and, still more specially, the class of systems with commensurate (or, rationally dependent) delays, where hi = i are

all integer multiples of a same constant delay

A( ) Rnn [ ];

i=0

Ai x(t hi ) + Bi u(t hi );

i=0

C(s) =

k

r

Ci eshi +

i=0

A(s) =

q

j=1

k

Dl ses!l +

B(s) =

1 es'j

;

s

Ai eshi +

i=0

l=0

k

Nj

Bi eshi +

i=0

u(s)

Z = L(u(t)) ,

r

j=1

r

j=1

Gj

1 es'j

;

s

1 es'j

;

Hj

s

y(s)

Z = L(y(t)):

(18)

its characteristic equation 1(s)=0 and associated spectrum

(A), with

1(s) = det(sIn A(s));

(19)

(20)

transcendental equation 1(s) = 0 has an in.nity of roots, i.e.

card (A) = .

!l = l), (18) can be reformulated through a transfer matrix

over the .eld R(s; es ) of the rational fractions in s and

es , i.e.

M(s; es ) = C(s)(sIn A(s))1 B(s):

(21)

The behavioral set-up (Willems, 1991) provides an alternative framework to the theory of transfer functions over

rings. Here, a behavior B will be given as B = ker R, where

R is a matrix of delay and di2erential operators (s;
) acting

on the function space. The two approaches are close to each

other (behavior ker[D; N ] and transfer function D1 N ),

however the behavioral approach is more complete for

realization purposes, 6 since it does not neglect the uncontrollable or unobservable parts (GlMusing-LMuerNen, 1997b).

Another very general formulation of linear retarded systems (11) (Dk = 0) involves Stieltjes integrals: 7

0

x(t)

=

[dK()] x(t + );

x(t) Rn ;

(22)

t 0;

x() = ()

] ; 0];

K() are functions with bounded variation. Under some assumptions 8 on K() and , the Laplace transform exists

and, for suSciently large values of Re s

Z

Z

[sI K(s)]

x(s)

Z = (0) + F(s);

F(t) =

Z

K(s)

=

0

[dK()](t + );

es dK();

s C;

Z =

F(s)

x(s)

Z =

0

l=1

& Norkin, 1973). This property of (24) was called formal

stability (Byrnes, Spong, & Tarn, 1984) for linear systems,

or f-stability (Kolmanovskii & Nosov, 1986) for nonlinear ones. It is a crucial property, since trying to stabilize

an initially formally unstable system through a state feedback encounters important robustness problems. This was

recently pointed out in Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (2002),

with the following NSC for (24) to be exponentially stable in the scalar case (Dl = dl R) with noncommensurate

delays !l :

q

|dl | 1:

Exponential stability

Then, they considered the scalar system with two rationally

independent delays !1 ; !2

(23)

Delays are known to have complex e2ects on stability

(Kolmanovskii et al., 1999a). Despite their bad reputation

(see for instance Olbrot (1984) for retarded systems and

Datko (1998) for the neutral case), they may have a stabilizing e2ect: the well-known example y(t)+y(t)y(t

M

h)=0

is unstable for h=0, but asymptotically stable 9 for h=1 (see

also other examples in Abdallah et al. (1993)linearor

Goubet, Dambrine, and Richard (1995) nonlinear).

6

linear FDEs

In the retarded case (Dl =0), the necessary and suScient

condition for the asymptotic stability of the LTI system (11)

is a straightforward generalization of the ODEs theory, since

it requires (19) not to have zeros in the right half-plane

Re s 0. The same condition, applied to (23), still ensures

that the system in the Stieltjes form (22), with the previous

assumptions on K() and , is asymptotically stable.

In the neutral case (Dl = 0), the situation is di2erent, because there can appear

q an in.nite number of unstable roots,

due to the term s l=1 Dl es!l involved inside the determinant. In the complex plane, there may be in.nite branches

of roots tending to the imaginary axis; conditions based on

the sign of the real parts must then be considered with great

care (Kolmanovskii & Myshkis, 1992). But assuming the

stability of the di2erence equation

q

x(t) +

Dl x(t !l ) = 0;

(24)

l=1

Z

1(s) = det[sIn K(s)]

= 0:

1671

7

0 Here, the delay can be in.nite. For Dk = 0 (neutral systems), add

+ ) in the right-hand side of (22).

[dKN ()] x(t

8 F(t) absolutely convergent, 0

|| |d kij ()| + and (0) +

( 0 ()2 d)1=2 .

9 The approximation y(t)

[y(t) y(t h)]h1 explains the damping

e2ect.

(25)

stable for u = 0), a feedback control u(t) = f1 x(t !1 )

f2 x(t !2 ) stabilizes (25) if and only if |d1 + f1 | + |d2 +

f2 | 1. But, if the feedback is applied with small time

delays 41 ; 42 , i.e.

u(t) = f1 x(t !1 41 ) f2 x(t !2 42 )

(26)

(41;j 42j )

then there is a sequence

and (26) is exponentially unstable, although it is exponentially stable for 41 = 42 = 0. This follows from the fact that

|d1 | + |f1 | + |d2 | + |f2 | 1.

2.2.2. The Krasovskii-type approach

Anyway, whatever retarded or neutral class the system

may belong to, checking eigenvalue conditions is much

harder than for ODEs. This explains why numerous stability approaches have been investigated. The diSculty increases with three factors: time-varying delays, nonlinear

1672

Table 2

Validity of the stability approaches

Methods

LTI, cnst.h

Nonlin.

Varying delays

Neutral

C-plane, roots

Matrix pencils

Norm, measure

1st Liapunov

Krasovskii

Razumikhin

Comparison tech.

LaSalle invar.

Low dim

Low dim

Yes

Obvious

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

dh

1

dt

h

Yes

?

Yes

?

Yes

?

Yes

Yes

Yes

?

presentation of these methods can be found in the survey

(Richard, 1998) and a more complete one, in the monographs (Hale & Verduyn-Lunel, 1993; Kolmanovskii and

Nosov, 1986; Niculescu, 2001). Whereas there are general

results for stability independent of delay (i.o.d), 10 one may

expect sharper, delay-dependent stability (d.d) conditions.

This is because the robustness of i.o.d. properties is of course

counterbalanced by very conservative conditions. In engineering practice, information on the delay range are generally available and d.d. criteria are likely to give better

performances.

In this subsection, the most investigated generalization,

by Krasovskii (1963), of the Liapunov direct method will be

brieVy illustrated. It involves functionals instead of classical

positive de.nite functions, as described in the following

result (Kolmanovskii & Nosov, 1986).

Theorem 2. The zero solution of the retarded system x(t)=

sets) is asymptotically stable if there exists a continuous

functional V (t; ): R C R+ , which is positive-de;nite,

decreasing, admitting an in;nitesimal upper limit 11 and

whose full derivative V (t; xt ) along the motions is negative

de;nite over a neighborhood of 0.

Extensions of the classical, quadratic Liapunov functions

have been particularly studied in the framework of LTI delay

systems. For instance, considering the simple, single-delay

system

x(t)

= A0 x(t) + A1 x(t h);

(27)

V (xt ) = x(t)T Px(t) +

the delay(s) may cover the full range [0; +[. In d.d. stability

(delay-dependent), the speci.cation h [hm ; hM ] is taken into account.

The i.o.d. stability analysis of (14) can be reduced to the stability study

of the system without delay (hi = 0) and the veri.cation that no root

of the characteristic equation can cross the imaginary axis for any frequency. This leads to frequency sweeping tests (Chen & Latchman,

1995). More details on d.d./i.o.d. stability are given in Dugard and

Verriest (1997, Chap. 1).

11 u(x); v(x): Rn R+ positive-de.nite, u((0)) 6 V (t; )

6 v(C ).

(28)

one obtains suScient conditions in the form of Riccati equations: (27) is asymptotically stable for any h 0 if there

exist positive symmetric matrices P, S, R verifying:

AT0 P + PA0 + PA1 S 1 AT1 P + S + R = 0;

or equivalently, the LMI

T

A0 P + PA0 + S PA1

AT1 P

0:

(29)

(30)

equation for ODEs nevertheless, in the delayed case, this

suScient condition is far from being necessary. From here,

many generalizations have been proposed, involving the

various terms:

V1 (x(t)) = xT (t)Px(t);

0

T

V2 (xt ) = x (t)

Qi x(t + ) d;

V3 (xt ) =

V4 (xt ) =

hi

hi

0

'i

V6 (xt ) =

hi

t+

V5 (xt ) = x(t)T

10

hi

0

hi

(31)

Pi (:)x(t + :) d:;

x(t + :)T Pi (:; )x(t + ) d: d:

stability of discrete delays, V4 for distributed delays or

discrete-delay dependent stability (see Section 4). For instance, considering system (27), V (xt )=V1 (x(t))+V4 (xt )+

V4 (xth ) is a particular application of Kolmanovskii,

Niculescu, and Richard (1999b) that leads to the following

delay-dependent condition, with A = A0 + A1 ; R1 for V4 (xt )

T

A P + PA + hR1 + hR2

hPAT0 AT1

hA2T

1 P

hPA1 A0

hPA21

hR1

hR2

the input-to-state stability (ISS) nonlinear small gain theorem. As a consequence, the ISS stabilizability of a nonlinear

system without delay is preserved for small delays at the

input.

0:

(32)

suAcient schemes: Infante and Castelan (1978) for linear

retarded systems with discrete delays, Huang (1989) for distributed ones, see also Louisell (1991) for varying delays.

But, the general computation of the time-varying matrices

in V5 and V6 comes up against computational problems

and the result cannot be applied for robust stability purposes. To avoid such computational limitations, Gu (1999,

2001) introduced more particular forms of V5 ; V6 , with

piecewise-constant functions Pi (:), leading to the so-called

discretization scheme: one can thus get interesting compromises between the reduction of the conservatism and

the computional e2ort. A good summary of many of these

techniques can be found in Niculescu (2001). Recently,

Kharitonov and Zhabko (2001) proposed an other way to

overcome the computation of general Pi (:) and Pi (:; )

matrices, based on the fundamental matrix properties. Other

ways of improving the stability analysis by playing on the

modelling will be presented in Section 4.

2.2.3. The Razumikhin-type approach, control Liapunov

functions and input-to-state stability

Aside from the LiapunovKrasovskii method, let us mention brieVy: (1) The comparison techniques, which are based

on di2erential inequalities (Kato, 1973; Lakshmikantham

& Leela, 1969). (2) The method proposed by Razumikin

(1956), which involves a Liapunov function v(x(t)) whose

derivative has to be negative only for special solutions of

the system. 12

The .rst approach gives a very general framework to

the stability study of complex systems (Borne, Dambrine,

Perruquetti, & Richard, 2002, Chap. 4) and allows

stability domain estimation. Nevertheless, in terms of

stabilization, it may turn out to be conservative since it

leads to nonconvex problems. The LiapunovRazumikhin

technique also generally leads to conservative results,

but it applies to time-varying delays without restriction but boundedness (0 6 h(t) ), whereas classical Krasovskii techniques require a bounded derivative

6 1). Besides, the relative computational sim(h(t)

plicity of Razumikhin functions permitted to generalize the notion of control Liapunov function to delay

systems (Jankovic, 2001). It was also shown in Teel

(1998) that the common Razumikhin-type theorem (Hale

& Verduyn-Lunel, 1993, p. 152) is the condition of

12

1673

maxh660 w(()) from a Razumikhin function w(x(t)) (Kolmanovskii

& Myshkis, 1999, p. 254). Thus, the Razumikhin technique can be

considered as a particular case of the Krasovskii one.

A TDS can be considered as a causal mapping F from a

space of inputs U L 13 to a space of outputs V L .

For linear maps, basic results were stated in Georgiou

and Smith (1992) (delay systems in the form ehs G(s)).

More general ones (multiple state and input delays)

can be found in Georgiou and Smith (1999) and the

herein references. The causal operator F is said to be

BIBO stable (or stable) if F0 = 0 and F|U ,

sup{FuT =uT : u U; T 0; uT = 0} , with

fT , ess supt[0; T ] f(t).

For nonlinear maps, the robustness properties were considered in Georgiou and Smith (1997) by introducing alternative stability notions (which coincide in the linear case).

Several examples of the robustness w.r.t. small delays were

given and the approach was speci.cally used for nonlinear

systems in Bonnet, Partington, and Sorine (1999, 2000).

2.3. Structural properties consideration

Compared to ODEs, the controllability and observability

of delay systems present three main di2erences:

(1) The .rst is related to the state variables: as for any

functional model, the actual notion of controllability means

to reach a function (which here means to assign the vector

x(t) from time t1 to time t1 + h), instead of reaching a point

at a time t1 (which was the case for ODEs).

(2) The second di2erence is linked with time: For a linear

system without delay starting at time t1 , any point that can

be reached at time t2 t1 can also be reached at time t1 +

(t2 t1 ), 0. But, delays introduce the existence of a

required, minimum reaching time. 14 Thus, in addition to

the usual controllability indices that correspond to reachable

spaces, one must add another kind of indices (class of the

system) de.ning how many units of delays the system needs

for reaching the target.

(3) Lastly, the question of the nature and realization of

the control law to be implemented also constitutes an important issue: the generic expression of the state-feedback

law is u(t) = g(xt ), which means that the controller

has in.nite dimension. One may prefer to restrict it to

memoryless controls u(t) = g(x(t)) or to point-wisedelayed controls u(t) = g(x(t); x(t hi )).

Some de.nitions will be recalled here. Further correspondences between di2erent properties in a unifying framework

(in the module theory and behavioral approach) are given in

13 L

denotes the set of complex-valued measurable functions f on

the nonnegative real axis such that ess: suptR+ f(t) .

14 Obviously, the simple system x(t)=x(t)+u(t1)

cannot be controlled

within 1 s.

1674

Loiseau and Rabah (1997).

an example in Loiseau (1994). 15

Delfour & Mitter, 1972). The state xZ0 is M2 -controllable

at time t to xZ1 M2 ([ h; 0]; Rn ) if there is a sequence of

Z xZ0 ; ui )

controls {ui } de.ned in L2 ([0; t]; Rm ) such that x(t;

converges to xZ1 (in the sense of the norm over M2 ). The

system is M2 -controllable at time t if all states xZ0 are

M2 -controllable at time t to any xZ1 M2 ([ h; 0]; Rn ). It

is M2 -strictly controllable if, in the previous de.nition, the

sequence {ui } is replaced by a control u.

Fliess, Mounier, and Sename (1996)). The linear system (14) is Rn -controllable if, for any initial condition

C and x1 Rn , there is a time t1 0 and a control

law u(t) L2 ([0; t1 ]; Rm ) such that x(t1 ; ; u) = x1 . It is

strongly Rn -controllable if any time t1 0 can be taken.

If the property is restricted to x1 = 0, then the system is

Rn -controllable to the origin.

k

linear system x(t)

= A0 x(t) + i=0 Bi u(t i), is absolutely

controllable if, for any initial condition {x0 ; u(t)t[k; 0] },

there is a time t1 0 and a bounded control law u(t) such

that x(t1 ) = 0 with u(t) = 0 for all t [t1 k; t1 ].

A necessary and suScient condition for absolute controllability is rank[E; A0 E; : : : ; A0n1 E] = n, with E =

k iA0

Bi . However, this property needs u(t) = 0 for

i=0 e

all t [t1 k; t1 ]: Such an ending free-motion is too

constraining in general. In the following de.nition, this

constraint does not exist.

Denition 5 (( ; Rn )-controllability; Weiss, 1967; Olbrot,

1973). The linear system (14) is ( ; Rn )-controllable (with

regard to some function C) if, for any initial condition C, there is a .nite time t1 0 and a control law

u(t) L2 ([0; t1 + h], Rm ) such that x(t; ; u) = (t t1 h)

for all t [t1 ; t1 + h].

For single-delay systems, the (0; Rn )-controllability can

be checked through Grammian properties (Weiss, 1967).

Denition 6 (Spectral controllability; Manitius & Olbrot,

1979). The system (14) with notation (16) is spectrally controllable if

rank[sI A(es ); B(es )] = n;

s C:

(33)

bases for e2ective control of linear systems. It is a functional

property, but only applies to the problem of controlling the

spectrum (A) (20): system (14) is stabilizable if and only

if (33) holds for any s C, Re(s) 0 (see a constructive

proof in BrethFe (1997) and GlMusing-LMuerNen (1997a), based

on BFezout domain properties). Spectral properties easily

extend to structural analysis (stabilizability, detectability,

etc.): Any causal transfer matrix on R(s; es ), as Eq. (21),

admits a stabilizable and spectrally observable realization.

It also admits a detectable and spectrally controllable realization. It was nonetheless noted that the notion of minimal

realization (in the sense of spectral controllability and

spectral observability, as well as minimum number of integration s1 and delay es operators) does not always exist:

This de.nition is not a functional, but a point-wise property. There are three noteworthy di2erences with ODEs:

The trajectory may not stay at x1 after t1 :

Except in the rare case of strong controllability, the time

t1 cannot be as small as desired.

The Rn -controllability is not equivalent to the

Rn -controllability to the origin.

Denition 8 (Ring-, or R[
]-controllability, see Lafay

et al. (1996)). The linear system over ring (16) is

controllable over the ring R[
] or strongly controllable, if there exists a control law of polynomial type

u(t) = f(x;
x;
2 x; : : :), allowing one to reach any element

of the module Rn [
] from any initial state x0 Rn [
].

It is controllable over the .eld R(
) or weakly controllable, if there exists a control law of rational type

u(t) = f(x;
x;
2 x; : : : ;
1 x;
2 x; ) allowing one to

reach any element of the module Rn [
] from any initial

state x0 Rn [
].

This de.nition is not of the functional type, but it

emphasizes the complexity of the control to be applied. The

corresponding necessary and suScient conditions can be expressed in terms of the controllability submodule associated

with the pair (A; B), i.e. A=Im B = Im B + A2 Im B+ +

An1 Im B, or equivalently in terms of the controllability matrix A=B = [B; AB; A2 B; : : : ; An1 B]. The survey

paper Lafay et al. (1996) shows that, for a LTI system

(13) with commensurate delays, the following implications

hold (and other additional ones, using the notion of torsion

submodules):

(1) Strong R[
]-controllability Absolute controllability Weak R(
)-controllability Rn -controllability.

(2) Approximate controllability Spectral controllability Weak R(
)-controllability.

This means that strong controllability is a very demanding

property, since the system must be controllable as if it was

an ODE.

rings may be not isomorphic, so that there may be no canonical choice

for a realization.

extended to delay systems (Picard & Lafay, 1995, providing

interesting information about the smallest time t1 that is

needed for given state variables (controllability submodules)

to reach the expected value x1 in Rn .

These notions can be transposed to the observability (see

Picard, Sename, and Lafay, 1996 and references therein),

except for neutral systems that are not formally stable (unstable di2erence operator, see Section 2.2): Here, the problem of asymptotic observers is still open.

3. Limits of the nite dimension approximations

3.1. Rational approximations

The main interest for approximating a delay with some

rational approximation lies in the hope of treating an

in.nite-dimensional system like a .nite-dimensional one.

Approximating delays by means of rational transfer functions (shift-operator techniques) generally involves the

truncation of some in.nite series, and can be achieved via

the following approximation:

p(hs)

ehs

;

(34)

p(hs)

where p R[hs] is an appropriate polynomial without any zero in the right half-plane Re s 0. Let us

mention in particular the well known PadFe-.rst order

approximation (p(hs) = (1 (hs=2))), the Laguerre

Fourier series (p(hs) = (1 (hs=2n))n ), the Kautz series

(p(hs)=(1(hs=2n)+(h2 s2 =8n2 ))n ), the second-order PadFe

shift (p(hs) = (1 (hs=2n)

(h2 s2 =12n2 ))n ) and the diago+

n

nal PadFe shift (pn (hs) = k=0 (2n k)!(hs)k =k!(n k)!,

n 3).

To mention only the recent results, several of these

models have been compared, for stable systems, in terms

of the H2 ; H and L errors in MMakilMa and Partington

(1999a, b): an exact asymptotic H error formula was

given, which provides an appealing approach for determining .nite-dimensional, LTI models of open-loop systems

with delay. Zhang, Knospe, and Tsiotras (2000) used the

diagonal PadFe shift to derive a d.d., suScient stability condition, the conservatism degree of which has a calculable

upper-bound. In Al-Amer and Al-Sunni (2000), an order

reduction technique is adapted so as to minimize the H

gap over a given bandwidth (however, the only open-loop

was concerned). Time-domain methods (spline approximations (Banks & Kappel, 1979)), frequency-domain

methods (Gu, Khargonekar, & Lee, 1992), Hankel operator

based methods (Glover, Lam, & Partington, 1990; Glader,

Hognas, MMakilMa, & Toivonen, 1991; Ohta & Kojima, 1999)

as well as Blaschke product truncations (Yoon & Lee,

1997) were also considered.

These techniques concern the approximation of the delay

terms from their open-loop properties, i.e. from the operator

ehs . In Beghi, Lepschy, and Viaro (1997), generalized by

1675

purposes, the consideration of the closed-loop characteristics

can lead to better suited approximations. Then, a method

for obtaining rational approximations was derived from the

analysis of the closed-loop operator ehs =(1 + aehs ) with

a constant (Beghi et al., 1997) or polynomial (Battle &

Miralles, 2000) input u(t). In the simplest case, one obtains

p(hs) = 64 + 4 hs + 62 h2 s2 + h3 s3 2 24h3 s3 . Compared

to the classical PadFe approximations of the same order, it

was claimed to widen the frequency range.

Rational approximations can also be combined with an

in.nite dimensional delay-operator so as to check the robustness of a system with a small uncertainty on the delay.

Consider a delay operator ehs ; with h = h0 + ]h1 , h0 the

estimated mean value of the delay, h1 the (known) maximum error on the delay magnitude and ] [ 1; 1]. Then,

one can use a low order PadFe approximation of the unknown delay e]h1 s , or a pseudo-delay approach. Provided

that the incertitude h1 remains small, such a combination

avoids high-order rational approximations, and transforms

the problem of robustness w.r.t. delay uncertainties into a

problem of robustness w.r.t. multiplicative uncertainties on

the rational transfer function. Regarding PadFe approximations, it was used in connection with ?-analysis in Wang

and Skogestad (1993) so as to derive suScient conditions

for the stability over a delay interval [h0 h1 ; h0 + h1 ], and

in Fattouh, Sename, and Dion (2000) for a robust observer

design.

But, as said in the introduction, replacing a delay by some

.nite-dimensional approximation can also be a source of

problems or, at least, constitutes a limitation in their analysis:

(a) Linear systems with a single constant delay remain

the favorite domain of application for these methods. But,

even in this case, designing controllers that stabilize PadFe

approximations may lead to unstable behaviors of the true

system (Silva, Datta, & Battacharya, 2001). The problem

of choosing the order of the approximation a priori can be

diScult, as well as proving the closed-loop stability on the

basis of such a reduced open-loop model (see the solutions

given, on the basis of coprime factorizations, in Partington

(1991)). Besides, the main drawback of rational approximations is their high order. It is not possible to approximate the

delay operator ehs arbitrarily closely by rational functions

in the sense of the H norm. If, however, one tries to approximate (1=(s + a))ehs , for some a 0, then the optimal

H error of a rational approximation of order n is O(1=n).

In the time domain (in L1 norm), it has turned out that

the best rate for approximation known, so far, is O(log n=n)

(see Glover & Partington, 1987). The suboptimalbut easy

to calculateapproximation: (1=(s + a))((2n hs)=(2n +

hs))n achieves a slower convergence, in O(n2=3 ) (MMakilMa &

Partington, 1999b). One can conclude that delays can be

fairly approximated by rational functions only at the cost of

high orders, when one always wishes to keep the order of the

approximation as low as possible. The control techniques

become more cumbersome the higher the order and, in the

1676

end, can be as complicated as a direct synthesis on the initial model with delay. The same problem occurs in system

identi.cation (Wang & Zhang, 2001): On the contrary, several modelling methods introduce delays so as to simplify

the models of high-order rational transfer functions. For instance, such authors as Khan and Lehman (1996) and Majhi

and Atherton (1999), provided relay-feedback identi.cation

methods leading to .rst (or second) order-plus-delay transfer functions. Another example is given by the StrejFc models

T (s) = kehs =(1 + s)n , which are also classically used to

identify stable industrial processes with aperiodic transients.

(b) For constant but unknown delays, i.e. h [0; hM ],

the above-mentioned results may allow stability analyzes

but cannot be applied straightforwardly to de.ne a control law: Besides the fact that the diSculty in choosing the

truncation increases, it is not clear how they can be used

for designing speci.c controllers as those including delays:

Smith-predictor-like, non-static feedbacks with discrete or

distributed delays, etc. And even if one considered the only

stability analysis, there exist other competitive ways, as

the pseudo-delay technique (see Section 4.4). MacDonald

(1989, Chap. 7) preferred this last to any approximation

method, and the same conclusion was reached by Walton

and Marshall (1987).

(c) Rational approximations are inappropriate for

time-varying delays. For instance, it was shown that a simple, .rst-order system with a variable delay can be unstable

while each of the values taken by the delay (when constant)

provides a stable model. The following example, in which

the delay h(t) corresponds to a sampling device with a unit

period:

x(t)

= ax(t) + bx(t h(t));

h(t) = t k;

t ]k; (k + 1)];

(35)

Sampling may constitute another kind of a .nite approximation. In order to ensure the correspondence between the

s-transfer function ehs and the z-transfer function z m , the

delay h has to be constant and known, i.e. h = mT . Choosing the sampling period T as a submultiple of the delay

h = mT avoids introducing additional dynamics (possibly

unstable) in the discrete z-transfer function. But, robustness

issues with regard to the delay value cannot be analyzed

via this discretization. Moreover, the discretized z-transfer

function of a system with time-varying delays via periodic

sampling has no physical meaning. The dimension of the

model obtained increases with the sampling frequency and,

reciprocally, using a constant sampling period on a variable

delay cannot be studied via a usual z-transfer function with

constant order.

On the contrary, developing the theory of systems with

time-varying delays may be of help to analyze the implementation problems. Any sampling device can be regarded

as a time-varying delay process: the periodic delay de.ned

in Eq. (36) corresponds to a T -periodic sampling (see some

comments in Louisell (2001)). Samplers with a varying period can be modelled by continuous time systems with more

general varying delays as well.

4. Modelling in connection with stability studies

This section presents some links between the stability

analysis of delay systems and the way one transforms their

state-space representation.

4.1. LeibnizNewton formula

k N

(36)

and b = 4. It is unstable, even if its characteristic roots

have negative real parts for any constant h(t) h 6 1. For

a = 1, b = 1:5, it is asymptotically stable, whereas linear LTI conditions do not hold (see also Louisell (2001)

for other instability counterexamples). Thus, choosing a

mean value of the delay and applying .nite-dimensional approximations (as rational ones) cannot be justi.ed for the

analysis.

(d) Lastly, note that in the case of nonlinear or

time-varying FDEs, .nite-dimension approximations do

not allow the analysis of the kind of complexity we have

seen in Section 2.1.1.

Thus, regarding these techniques, the precautions one has

to take in choosing the truncation order, the high order one

.nally may have to cope with, as well as the limitations

of the class of models one can deal with, constitute a real

motivation for developing techniques that are speci.cally

tailored for delay systems.

A link between modelling and stability will be emphasized here: The major part of the d.d. stability conditions

were obtained by using some other formulation of the initial, generally LTI system. As a general observation, one

can .rst note that, for the prototype system:

x Rn

x(t)

= A1 x(t) + A2 x(t h);

(37)

can be found in condition (30)). On the contrary, the criteria ensuring d.d. stability for h [0; hM [ require the matrix

A1 + A2 to be Hurwitz (which can be found in condition

(32). On this basis, several results

t concerning d.d. stability

have derived, from the formula: th x(s)

ds=x(t)x(t h),

the following change of variable (see Goubet-Bartholomeus,

Dambrine, and Richard (1997) in the single-delay case,

Niculescu and Chen (1999) for multiple delays, and many

other references in Gu and Niculescu (2001)):

Ai x(t h) = [Ai Li ]x(t hi )

t

+ Li x(t)

x(s)

ds :

thi

(38)

x(t)

=

m

(39)

i=1

m

m

Li x(t) +

[Ai Li ]x(t hi )

x(t)

=

i=1

i=1

m

i=1; j=1

thi

Li Aj x(s hj ) ds:

(40)

be replaced with a stable one, [L1 ] in (40). Such decomposition can be optimized via LMI algorithms for stability

purposes. Note that it increases the number of characteristic roots (Gu & Niculescu, 2001). This principle can also

be generalized to other changes (Kolmanovskii & Richard,

16

1999): the above system

can be written in the three folm

lowing forms (A = i=1 Ai , Aij = Ai Aj , hij = hi + hj ):

thj

m

Aij

x(s) ds;

(41)

x(t)

= Ax(t)

x(t)

= Ax(t)

m

Ai

i=1

thi

x(s)

ds;

t

m

d

x(t) +

Ai

x(s) ds = Ax(t):

dt

thi

(43)

hi Aij R1 BijT P = Q;

i; j=1

J+

m

i=1

J+

m

i=1

Ri h i +

m

T

AT PAi R1

i Ai PAhi = Q:

i; j=1

positive matrices Ri and Q, there is a positive solution P to

one of the three previous Riccati equations (Kolmanovskii,

Tchangani, & Richard, 1998). The resulting conditions depend on all the delays values, but the dependency can be reduced to some chosen delays (Kolmanovskii et al., 1999b),

by adapting the transformations. However, the stability properties of the original and transformed systems are not equivalent: Whereas the stability of (41) implies the stability of

16

Shaked, 2002), which also corresponds to a 2-D model,

uses transformation (38), but enriches it through singular

systems techniques; the idea consists in rewriting the general delay system (11), in free motion (u(t) 0), under the

singular form:

x(t)

= z(t);

(44)

0 z(t)

= z(t) +

q

Dl z(t !l )

l=1

k

Ai x(t hi ) +

i=0

Krasovskii functionals (31) via a formal two-step procedure (Kolmanovskii, 1995), leading to the three di2erent

Riccati equations, with J = AT P + PA:

J + mRh + P

(42)

i=1

m

was addressed in Kharitonov and Melchior-Aguliar (2000).

In fact, the stability of the .rst or second transformed

systems is not necessary, since they introduce additional

dynamics (Gu & Niculescu, 2001), the poles of which are

absent from the original spectrum. 17 The stability of the

third transformed system is necessary, but the proof of

its suSciency

the auxiliary, di2erence equation

requires

m

t

x(t) + i=1 Ai thi x(s) ds = 0 to be asymptotically stable.

thij

i; j=1

1677

r

t'j

j=1

Gj () x() d

a LiapunovKrasovskii functional of the following type is

used (with X T (t) = [xT (t); z T (t)]):

V (xt ; zt ) = X T (t)EPX (t) + V3 (xt ) + V4 (zt );

E=

In

;

P=

P1

P2

P3

(45)

;

P1 = P1T :

(46)

of matrix E; it is a degenerate functional (i.e., non

positive-de.nite), which corresponds to the way of dealing

with singularly perturbed systems. A convenient choice of

V3 ; V4 can be deduced from a LMI optimization. The results

apply to both retarded and neutral systems with polytopic

uncertainties. To aim at conciseness, we give here the condition relative to the simple system (27): It is asymptotically

stable if one can .nd P1 = P1T 0; P2 ; P3 ; Q = QT ; R = RT ,

such that

T

A P2 + P2T A

P1 P2T + AT P3 hP2T A1

P1 P2 + P T A P3 P T + hR hP T A1 0:

3

3

3

T

T

hA1 P2

hA1 P3

hR

17

(41) applied to system (37) gives: x(t)

=

t

[A1 x(s) + A2 x(s h)] ds, which poles are the

(A1 + A2) x(t) A2 th

zeros of: det(In [(1 esh )=s]A2 ) det(sIn A1 A2 esh ), whereas the

poles of (37) are the zeros of det(sIn A1 A2 esh ). If A2 h1 ,

then (41) is unstable even if (37) is stable (Gu & Niculescu, 1999).

1678

1982), also introduced in Kwon and Pearson (1980), Lewis

(1979) and Slater and Wells (1972), is often involved when

one considers systems with input delay,

roots of the characteristic equation

x(t)

= Ax(t) + Bu(t h);

x(t) Rn :

t

z(t) = x(t) +

eA(th) Bu() d;

th

(48)

(49)

z(t)

= Az(t) + eAh Bu(t);

z(t) Rn :

(50)

is straightforward, provided that (A; B) is stabilizable (thus,

so is (A; eAh B)).

t The resulting control law is distributed:

u(t) = K0 x(t) + th K0 eA(th) Bu() d.

The problem with delay on the state is more complicated.

The following system was considered in Fiagbedzi and

Pearson (1986),

x(t)

= A0 x(t) + A0 x(t h) + B0 u(t) + B1 u(t ')

(51)

t

z(t) = x(t) +

eA(th) A1 x() d

+

t'

(52)

z(t)

= Az(t) + Bu(t);

A = A0 + eAh A1 ;

B = B0 + e

A'

(54)

The critical values of h which may exhibit a stability bifurcation correspond to the imaginary roots of (54), with

|d(j!)=n(j!)| = |ehj! | = 1. Thus, the general idea of

pseudo-delay techniques is, at .rst, to look for the possible intersections of the ratio curve d(j!)=n(j!) with the

unit circle. This de.nes the possible crossing frequencies

!i . In such a technique, the delay ehs can be equivalently replaced with a convenient rational transfer function

pn (sT )=pd (sT ) with a unit modulus. Then, the possible

crossing frequencies !i are obtained by checking the equation: d(j!)pn (j!T ) + n(j!)pd (j!T ) = 0 for increasing

values of the parameter T ]0; +[. This equation is simply polynomial, and whenever a pair (!i ; Ti ) provides a

solution, corresponding delays are found. The parameter

T is called the pseudo-delay. Rekasius (1980) involved

the transformation pn (sT )=pd (sT ) = (1 sT )=(1 + sT ).

Thowsen (1981), by using (1 sT )2 =(1 + sT )2 , obtained the following result, related to (14) without

input.

Theorem 9. s=j!; ! 0, is a root of the quasi-polynomial

k

di (s)eis for some 0 i/ it is also a root of

i=0

k

2i

2(ki)

for some T 0.

i=0 di (s)(1 sT ) (1 + sT )

th

z(t) Rn ;

(53)

B1 :

But solving the characteristic matrix Eq. (53) is not simple anymore. Fiagbedzi and Pearson (1986) have limited

the problem to the computation of the (.nite number of)

unstable eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this equation:

An application (simulation) to the idle speed control for

fuel injected engines was presented in Glielmo, Santini,

and Cascella (2000). Still more generally, applying such

transformation to (22) needs the unstable eigenstructure of

0

the characteristic matrix equation A = h eA dK() to be

studied.

Because the controllers derived from Artstein reduction

involve integral terms like those implied in (49), (52), they

can be considered as belonging to the class of predictor techniques. They may su2er from being sensitive to parameter

uncertainties and, still more, to delay mismatches. However,

they constitute an irreplaceable and widely used tool for systems with an input delay.

Such transformations remind us of the shift approximation (34). But, as mentioned in Niculescu (2001, p. 137),

the pseudo-delay technique is not an approximation; it is

more precisely connected to the classical bilinear application: C C, z = ej!h w = (1 z)=(1 + z) = j tan !h=2,

well known in digital control and signal processing, and

which realizes a mapping of the unit circle onto the imaginary axis. This explains why such a technique takes place

into the framework of model transformations.

Among the connected techniques, let us mention a result by Walton and Marshall (1987), who makes use of the

equation d(j!)d(j!) n(j!)n(j!) = 0 (thus, pn =pd =

d(s)=n(s)), which leads to a handy criterion in the

single-delay case (54).

4.5. Towards robustness techniques

Improving an original idea proposed in Fu, Li, and

Niculescu (1997) (see also Niculescu, 2001, p. 154),

Jun and Safonov (2000) studied the stability of (27) for

h [0; hM ] through an associated interconnected feedback

scheme (Fig. 2), the form of which allows classical robustness tools as Integral Quadratic Constraint (IQC),

(Megretski & Rantzer, 1997; Safonov, 1980) techniques to

be used.

1679

Q

S

D=

S T Q

In this scheme, the block , contains the delay characteristics. In what follows, A = A0 + A1 is supposed to be

asymptotically stable, which is the condition for (27) to be

stable for h = 0. In the form proposed by Jun and Safonov

(2000), the operator , has the Laplace transform 1(s) =

(ehs 1)=hs and the system corresponding to the block

G(s) is de.ned by

x(t)

= Ax(t) + Bu(t);

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t);

(55)

u(t) = ,(y(t));

with

A = A 0 + A1 ;

B = hH;

A1 = HE;

q 6 n;

C = EA;

H Rnq ;

D = hEH;

E Rqn ;

equivalent to that of system (27). The proof lies in

the following rewriting: (sI A0 A1 ehs )x = 0

(sI (I h1(s)A1 )1 (A0 + A1 ))x = 0. Then, (27) is

asymptotically stable if and only if the .rst involved matrix

is nonsingular in the right half-plane Re s 0, thus if and

only if the second is nonsingular, too. This second matrix

corresponds to (55).

The IQC theorem requires some operator D to verify the

following integral-quadratic constraint for any in [0; 1]:

+

y(t)

T

[y (t); ,(y(t))]dt 0:

,(y(t))

is stable and:

G(j!)

4 0; ! R; [G T (j!); I ]D

6 4I:

I

This frequency-dependent matrix inequality can be transformed into an equivalent nonfrequency-dependent LMI via

the KalmanYakubovichPopov (KYP) lemma (Willems,

is asymptotically stable if there are two symmetric positive

matrices P 0; Q 0 and a skew-symmetric matrix S such

that the following matrix is negative:

T

A P + PA + C T QC

PB + C T S + C T QD

:

BT P + S T C + DT QC Q + DT QC + S T D + DT S

A more general class of models has been presented in

Huang and Zhou (2000): multiple delays hi were taken

into consideration with, possibly, nonzero lower-bounds

(i.e. hi [him ; hiM ]). The robustness technique is di2erent

(small-? synthesis, Tits & Balakrishnan, 1998). But, in order to deal with him 0, the subsystem G(s) includes delay

elements ehim s ; moreover, the results may be conservative.

In this framework of robust control, the generalized Popov

theory (Ionescu, Oara, & Weiss, 1998) was also extended

to state-delayed systems (Ionescu, Niculescu, Dion, Dugard,

& Li, 2001). It aims at providing an interpretation of feedback stabilization and H control problems for systems

with discrete or distributed delays in terms of Popov triplets

E = (A; B; P),

Q S

R(n+m)(n+m) ;

P=

ST R

for which a KYP system in J (i.e., a nonlinear system

with unknown matrices X; V; W ) has to be solved:

R = V T JV;

L + XB = W T JV;

Q + AT X + XA = W T JW:

Before closing this subsection, we just mention the paper

Verriest and Aggoune (1998) in which several robustness

techniques (KYP lemma, Strict Bounded Real Lemma,

absolute stability, passivity) were applied to the stability

analysis of linear, discrete-delay systems with nonlinear

perturbations.

4.6. Linear time-varying approximations

In Banks (2002), the nonlinear system (here, without the

input)

x(t)

= A(x(t); x(t h))x(t);

x() = ();

h 6 6 0

(56)

approximations:

x[i] (t) = A(x[i1] (t); x[i1] (t h))x[i] (t);

x[i] () = ();

h 6 6 0:

(57)

1680

that the sequence of functions x[i] () converges in C([0; T ]),

for some T ]0; h]; to the solution of (56). The stability

study involves a nilpotent Lie algebra associated to (57) and

is achieved in terms of a particular Liapunov transformation.

The stabilizing control can be studied as well.

5.1. A brief overview

Since the Smith posicast control (Smith, 1957) and

predictor (Smith, 1959) in the late 1950s, the control via

or of delay systems has been widely considered. Many

of the techniques were based on approximation methods,

which are not necessarily convenient when signi.cant

uncertaintiesincluding delay variationsare involved.

During the last 10 years, many studies were devoted to

the control of TDS: Table 3, provides some references. Of

course, if the control can be studied with some success

in the case of unperturbed, LTI, open-loop-stable models, the domain remains widely open in more complex

cases.

5.2. Optimal control and the Bellman equation

Here, only the broad outlines of the dynamic programming method will be explained for systems with state delays.

More details can be found in Kolmanovskii and Shaikhet

(1996) and the references herein. The basic tool for retarded

systems is the Bellman functional equation. Consider the

system

x(t)

= f(t; xt ; u);

x() = ();

0 6 t 6 T;

(58)

h 6 6 0:

by x(t; s; u) (it is viewed as a function of s). The functional trajectory is denoted, consistently with notation xt , by

xs (t; u) = x(t; s + ; u) for [ h; 0]. The performance criterion is supposed to be

T

J (u) = F0 (xT ) +

F1 (t; xt ; u(t; xt )) dt;

(59)

0

Bellman functional V (t; ); C, is de.ned by

T

V (t; ) = inf F0 (xT (t; u)) +

F1 (s; xs (t; u); u) ds ;

uU

(those for which (58) has a solution with a .nite criterion

(59)). The total derivative of V (t; ) under the control u is

calculated as Lu V (t; ) = lim40 (1=4)[V (t + 4; xt+4 (t; u))

V (t; xt (t; u))]. Then, the optimal control u (t) U is the

Lu V (t; ) + F1 (t; ; u (t; )) = 0, V (T; ) = F0 ().

5.3. Sliding mode control

The sliding mode control (shortly, SMC) has a large historical background, belonging to the framework of variable

structure systems. One of the reasons is that many physical

systems naturally present some discontinuity in their dynamics, as for mechanical systems with a Coulomb friction

or controls by power electronics. The second reason is that

arti.cial introduction of discontinuity in the control can be

used as in.nite gains, able to scratch down a large class

of input and parameter disturbances. Thirdly, the performance speci.cation can be achieved easily when .nite-time

convergence is ensured. In a .nite-dimension framework

(then, without delay), it is known that if a complex system

can be written in a so-called normal form (developed by

Lukyanov, Utkin, Fliesssee Perruquetti & Barbot, 2002),

then an appropriate sliding mode strategy can be designed

so as to dominate the nonlinear terms and the disturbances,

provided the disturbance satis.es appropriate matching

conditions.

The combination of delay phenomena with relay actuators or sensors 18 makes the situation much more complex (Fridman, Fridman, & Shustin, 1996). The presence

of delay within a sliding mode control can induce oscillations around the sliding surface (see experimental results in

Choi & Hedrick, 1998), especially given delayed inputs. A

simple example (Richard, Gouaisbaut, & Perruquetti, 2001)

pointed out behavioral changes (bifurcations) arising when

designing a controller without taking an input delay into

consideration. This motivates the study of speci.c SMC design for systems with state and/or input aftere2ect.

Despite some extension of SMC to in.nite-dimensional

systems (Orlov, 2000; Orlov & Utkin, 1987) and of differential inclusions to aftere2ect systems (Kolmanovskii &

Myshkis, 1992, p. 55), the concrete control results are not

so numerous (Aggoune, 1999; Bonnet et al., 1999; Cheres,

Gutman, & Palmor, 1989; Choi, 1999; Choi & Hedrick,

1998; Dambrine, Gouaisbaut, Perruquetti, & Richard, 1998;

El-Khazaly, 1998; Georgiou & Smith, 1997; Gouaisbaut,

Dambrine, & Richard, 2002; Gouaisbaut, Perruquetti, Orlov,

& Richard, 1999a; Gouaisbaut, Perruquetti, & Richard,

1999b; Luo & De la Sen, 1992, 1993; Shyu & Yan, 1993).

To give an introductory summary on the possibilities of

SMC strategies for LTDS, let us summarize the situation as

follows:

(1) For systems with state delays the ideas are essentially the same as for ODEs (making use of a normal form

(Gouaisbaut et al., 1999a)), even if design and computations

are more complicated;

18

the delay identi.cation (see Section 6.4.1).

1681

Table 3

Some references on control

Control

LTI

LTI+uncertnt.

Smith predict.

& generaliz.

AstrM

Majhi and Atherton (1998)

Olbrot (1998) and

Fliess, Marquez, and Mounier (2001)

Niculescu (2001)

Robust

stabiliz.

(param.)

H

Constrained

stab.

Observers

Disturb.

decoupl.

Block-decoupl.

Model match.,

Feedb. precomp.

Optimal

Self-adjusting

Deadbeat

Vibrational,

Averaging

Stochastic

Meinsma and Zwart (2000) and

Mirkin and Tadmor (2002)

Nguang (1998), Tadmor (2000),

Watanabe et al. (1996)

BartholomFeuM s, Dambrine, and Richard

(1997), Hennet and Tarbouriech (1998) and

Mazenc, Mondie, and Niculescu (2001)

Conte and Perdon (1995) and

Rabah and Malabre (1999)

Conte and Perdon (1997)

Picard et al. (1997) and

Picard, Lafay, and Kucera (1998)

De Santis, Germani, and Jetto (1993),

Gibson (1983) and

Kolmanovskii and Shaikhet (1996)

Belkoura, Dambrine, Richard, and Orlov

(1998) and Kolmanovskii and Shaikhet

(1996)

Watanabe et al. (1996)

Dugard and Verriest (1997, Chap. 7)

Lehman and Weibel (1998)

Nilsson (1998)

TDC

FSA

SMC

LPV

Fractional

order

Passivity

Nonlin.

Palmor (1996)

Dugard and Verriest (1997)

and Kharitonov (1998)

Niculescu (2001)

Cao and Lam (2000) and

Gao, Huang, and Wang (2001)

(jumps)

and Dugard and Verriest (1997)

Moog et al. (2000)

and Pepe (1996)

and Pepe (1996)

Lehman (2002)

BrethFe (1997), GlMusing-LMuerNen (1997a)

and Watanabe et al. (1996)

see Section 5.3

Wu and Grigoriadis (2001)

Bonnet and Partington (2001) and

Hotzel and Fliess (1998)

Niculescu and Lozano (2001)

Contrl.

Liap. fct

Flatness

Feedback

Linearization

Lim. cycle,

Hopf

problems: To our best knowledge, few papers considered

this case (Bonnet et al., 1999; Choi & Hedrick, 1998;

Dambrine et al., 1998; Gouaisbaut et al., 1999b) and,

(2003) and Kolmanovskii and Myshkis

(1999)

Chang, Lee, and Park (1997),

Chang and Park (1998) and

Youcef-Toumi and Wu (1992)

and Verriest and Aggoune (1998)

Jankovic (2001) and

Teel (1998)

Mounier and Rudolph (1998), Petit

(2000) and Rudolph and Mounier (2000)

Germani, Manes, and Pepe (1996)

and Moog et al. (2000)

Oguchi, Watanabe, and Nakamizo (1998)

and Youcef-Toumi and Wu (1992)

Aernouts et al. (2000) and

Hale and Verduyn-Lunel (1993)

cannot be completely rejected, which implies (in the best

case) the ultimate boundedness instead of the asymptotic

convergence.

1682

In Aggoune (1999), Cheres et al. (1989) 19 , Choi (1999),

El-Khazaly (1998), Gouaisbaut et al., (1999a, 2002), Luo

and De la Sen (1993), Shyu and Yan (1993), and Zheng,

Cheng, and Gao (1995), the results only consider delayed

state variables (inputs and sensors are free of delay). InChoi

and Hedrick (1998), the aim was to reduce the chattering induced by delayed sensors, a combination with an

observer-based control was achieved on a concrete process.

Other ways of designing variable structure controllers still

yield computational diSculties: Zheng et al. (1995) relies

on the Artstein reduction (see the previous Section 4.3),

with the connected diSculties when the delay a2ects both

the state and input. In addition, the controller was not realizable for retarded inputs or sensors. Lastly, some results

need even more complete proofs. 20

5.3.2. SMC for systems with input/ouput delays

In what concerns systems with delayed inputs, an interesting work was developed in the inputoutput framework

initiated, for nonlinear system robustness, in Georgiou and

Smith (1997). This latter reference studied prototype examples of delay systems (with discontinuities) in the gap

topology. Then, in Bonnet et al. (1999), the SISO open-loop

systems considered are assumed to be LTI and BIBO stable, and to possess a delay in the numerator (here, delay is

necessary for the well-posedness of the closed loop). The

output is measured via a relay sensor (this can be extended

to other types of nonlinearities, in particular to saturated

sensors). The problem is to realize the tracking of a .xed

sinusoidal signal. In this case, a local inverse of the sign

operator (this means, relative to this reference signal) can be

de.ned and placed after the relay sensor, which allows the

.nding of an in.nite-dimensional, closed-loop controller in

a very original way. Note, however, that the robustness considered concerns additive perturbations a2ecting the output

of the local inverse control block, but not the output of

the signum sensor.

Gouaisbaut et al. (1999b) proposed a control design ensuring a robust convergence of SMC under state and input

delays. The idea was to add an integral e2ect at the input, so

as to obtain a system with increased order but without state

delay, then to combine a normal form for delay systems with

the use of the LiapunovKrasovskii method. However, this

approach may not allow a satisfactory disturbance rejection.

In Fridman et al. (1996) (see also Fridman, Fridman, &

Shustin, 2000 and Perruquetti & Barbot, 2002, Chap. 10),

the question was to investigate the chattering frequency

resulting from a delayed input, which resulted in demonstrating the existence of a countable set of oscillation periods with increasing values. In most cases, 21 the rapidly

oscillating solutions are unstable. Nevertheless, such stable

solutions can be designed for nonlinear feedbacks more

complex than the two-valued sign function (Ivanov &

Losson, 1995). Designing the control so as to stabilize

rapidly oscillating solutions has the advantage of reducing

the resulting amplitude.

Using a LiapunovRazumikhin approach, an overestimation of the chattering amplitude (i.e. the determination of an

attracting neighborhood around the sliding manifold) was

also provided in a case study Dambrine et al. (1998) (see

also in Perruquetti and Barbot, 2002, Chap. 11). This also

resulted in the estimation of its asymptotic stability domain.

5.4. Time delay control

The time delay control (TDC) is a technique which

voluntarily introduces a small delay h in the control design, so as to reduce the e2ect of additive disturbances

d(t) representing unknown dynamics. It appeared in the

early 1990s (Youcef-Toumi & Ito, 1990; Youcef-Toumi &

Reddy, 1992a; Youcef-Toumi & Wu, 1992), mainly aiming

at practical issues (Hsia & Gao, 1990; Jeong & Lee, 1997;

Youcef-Toumi & Reddy, 1992b). Rather than adjusting control gains (adaptive control) or identifying model parameters, its essential idea is to use past observations regarding

both the control input and system response. For instance,

and in order to present the very basic principle of TDC,

consider a perturbed LTI system under its normal form:

xi (t) = xi+1 (t);

xn (t) =

n1

i=1

h) (computed from the

past measurements of x(t)) allows us to de.ne the control: 22

u(t) = v(t) + u(t h)

b

19

Cheres et al. (1989) was not directly related to SMC, but turned out

to join this class for high gain values.

20 In Roh and Oh (1999), the input is delayed and a FSA (see Section

6.2) is de.ned. But, some ambiguity arises in the proof of this result

since the ;nite time convergence to the sliding manifold is not ensured:

The proof relies on a Razumikhins approach. Such combination with

Filippovs theory has not been deeply studied and, up to now, only

Krasovskiis approach can ensure the .nite time convergence (Richard

et al., 2001). Moreover, the paper contained a mistake in the de.nition

of matched uncertainties, as underlined in Nguang (2001).

(60)

xn (t h)

n1

ai xi (t h) ;

(61)

i=1

21 This was shown (Akian, Bliman, & Sorine, 1998) in particular, for

the scalar equation x(t)

= ax(t) k sgn(x(t h), for any a 0; k 0.

This equation is involved in fuel-air regulation problems for engines with

H-sensor. It has a unique solution with a period greater than 2h and all

other periodic solutions with a period less than 2h are unstable.

22 Note this control principle can be compared, for a part, to the use of

a numerical input integrator.

xi (t) = xi+1 (t);

xn (t) =

n1

(62)

i=1

Then, replacing the perturbation term d(t) (initial model)

with the di2erence [d(t) d(t h)] allows the rejection of

the slowly varying perturbations (for instance, low-pass .lter

in Jeong and Lee (1997)one can also think of the sliding control with reduced gains). The same principle was

developed for time delay observers (Chang et al., 1997;

Chang & Park, 1998).

6. Some open problems

6.1. Using the delayed inputs

As mentioned previously, many results have been published about the control of systems with state delays but

without input or output delays. They lead to memoryless controllers, which means control laws of the form

u(t)=Kx(t), or to more general controllers with memory that

include, nevertheless, an

instantaneous feedback term (for

example: u(t) = Kx(t) + i Ki x(t hi )).

But a much more diScult and challenging question is to

control a process without instantaneous measurement access

to state variables, or via delayed actuators. This question

was the original one settled by Tsypkin (1946) and, later, by

Smith (1959). For instance, it would be of theoretical and

practical interest to consider systems such as:

x(t)

= A0 x(t) + A1 x(t h) + B0 u(t) + B1 u(t h)

for which the pairs (A0 ; B0 ) or (A0 + A1 ; B0 ) are not controllable (for instance, B0 = 0), which means one must use

the B1 u(t h) term so as to obtain an eScient control. The

papers that .t this condition remain rare:

(1) Most of those papers deal with linear systems without state delay (A1 = 0). In this case, state predictor-like

techniques (see Watanabe et al., 1996) can be computed

from either a model reduction (see Section 4.3, for A1 = 0,

the model reduction is calculable); Or, in the form of a

.nite-spectrum assignment (see the survey Watanabe et al.,

1996). In this class, we mention the recent works devoted

to the H and robust control (Dym, Georgiou, & Smith,

M

1995; Foias, Ozbay,

& Tannenbaum, 1996; Kojima, Uchida,

Shimemura, & Ishijima, 1994; Meinsma & Zwart, 2000;

Mirkin, 2000; Nagpal & Ravi, 1997; Tadmor, 2000; Zhou

& Khargonekar, 1987). An overview of the many works devoted to systems with input/output delays is given in Mirkin

and Tadmor (2002). The .nite-spectrum assignment can

also be applied (see item 4 of the present list and the next

section), which again can be interpreted as state predictors.

1683

2000) (systems with saturation, inputoutput frame work).

(2) Regarding systems with state delays (A1 = 0), and

in spite of a rich literature on robust stabilization (Dugard

& Verriest, 1997; Ge, Frank, & Lin, 1996; Li & De Souza,

1996; Niculescu, 2001; Niculescu, De Souza, Dugard, &

Dion, 1998), tracking (Oucheriah, 1999), H techniques

(see Cao & Lam, 2000; Foias et al., 1996; Fridman &

Shaked, 2002; Mahmoud, 2000; Niculescu, 1998; Van

Keulen, 1993; Watanabe et al., 1996 and their references),

generalized Popov theory (Ionescu et al., 2001), passivity

(Niculescu & Lozano, 2001) or saturated control (Niculescu,

Dion, & Dugard, 1996; Tarbouriech & Gomes Da Silva,

2000), papers never quite consider delayed inputs (B1 = 0)

in the above-mentioned sense. Other papers (see for instance Choi & Chung, 1995; Lee, Moon, & Kwon, 1996;

Nguang, 1998), despite their titles, considered the delayed

control part B1 as a perturbation rather than an e2ective control input. Such results mainly use a state-space approach:

In order to generalize them to state and input/output delays, we think the transformation procedure (Kolmanovskii

& Richard, 1999) recalled in Section 4.1 may represent

an adequate way. The descriptor form (Section 4.2) may

also be useful as well, since it was used in the last section

of Fridman and Shaked (2002) for delayed outputs and

state.

(3) The variable structure control encounters the same

limitation (see above, Section 5.3), even if some e2ort was

devoted to retarded inputs (Bonnet et al., 1999; Choi &

Hedrick, 1998; Fridman et al., 2000; Dambrine et al., 1998;

Gouaisbaut et al., 1999b).

(4) The .nite-spectrum assignment can be applied

with delayed state and inputs, provided that the spectral controllability is ful.lled and for constant delays.

The existing algebraic solutions, using BFezout factorization (GlMusing-LMuerNen, 1997a; Loiseau & BrethFe, 1998;

Loiseau, 2001), are now ready to yield implementable softwares, but implementing the corresponding control laws

can raise numerical problems, as described in the following

section.

6.2. Digital implementation of distributed delays

In the 1970s, several papers (as the famous one by

Manitius & Olbrot, 1979) emphasized the interest of using distributed-delay controllers for discrete-delay plants

(see Watanabe et al., 1996): In .nite-spectrum assignment

(FSA), introduction of such operators in the feedback loop

allows a reduction of spectrum (20) to a .nite set (Olbrot,

1998). Contrary to the problem (initiated by Osipov in

1965, see Manitius & Olbrot, 1979) of shifting an arbitrary

but .nite number of eigenvalues, FSA does not require

the preliminary knowledge of the spectrum; moreover, the

stability of the closed loop is easy to check, since the characteristic equation (19) becomes a polynomial one. The

1684

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

2

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

spectral controllability is known to be a necessary and suf.cient condition for the spectrum assignment, and several

algorithms provide a solution for the corresponding feedback in the general case. 23 The following simple, scalar

example (VanAssche et al., 1999) illustrates the idea:

y(t)

= y(t) + u(t 1);

u(t) = 2

es

Y (s)

=

;

U (s) s 1

(63)

(64)

assignment at s = 1 (note that the Laplace transform of the

control u(t) (63) is L(u(t))=U (s)=V (s)[2e(1s)=(1

s + 2e1s )]Y (s)). A simulation result is given Fig. 3: Here,

the distributed e2ect was approximated by a discrete one:

1

1

e u(t ) d

[u(t) + 4e1=4 u(t 14 )

12

0

+ 2e1=2 u(t 12 )

+ 4e3=4 u(t 34 ) + e1 u(t 1)]:

(65)

ones with regard to parameter mismatches. For instance,

example (63) can admit a 20% variation of all coeScients (time constant, static gain and delay, see Fig. 4). The

robustness w.r.t. delay was studied in MondiFe, Niculescu,

and Loiseau (2001). However, the robustness with regard

to the digital implementation is certainly a more sensible

problem. The discrete realization of the distributed e2ect by

means of discrete delays remains a problem: Changing the

sampling period in simulations of Figs. 3 and 4 can destabilize the resulting behaviors. Recent works consider this

question: VanAssche et al. (1999) show that an accurate approximation of integral terms may lead to the instability of

the closed-loop when some delay occurs in the input. For instance, Fig. 5 was obtained by using a 10th-order trapezoidal

approximation, whereas Fig. 3 used only a fourth-order one,

23

GlMusing-LMuerNen (1997a) and Loiseau and BrethFe (1998).

(2000) provide necessary conditions for a digital implementation and Engelborghs, Dambrine, and Roose (2001) give

an interpretation in terms of Volterra integral equations.

6.3. Control via the delay value

Another open problem is to control a process in which

the input is the delay itself. For instance, the equation

y(t)

= g[y(t lu(t))];

u(t) u0 0

(66)

the recycled matter Vow is supposed to be a linear or nonlinear ratio g(y) of the quantity of raw material y inside the

crushing-mill, the output is the Vow of processed material

h(y) (also depending on the .lling level) and the rolling

band with a variable speed u has a total path length l. Apparently, the control of this kind of equation remains an open

problem. Apart from the few attempts we will mention here,

no theoretical grounding was stated, probably because no

tool comparable to the Bellman functional (see Section 5.2)

was proposed. Besides, the research of a stabilizing feedback law u = h; x requires the construction of a Liapunov

1685

some attention. It was underlined that, for a .xed function

y(t), the right-hand side of this equation speci.es a nonconvex set with respect to the allowed controls u(t). An attempt

at solving the problem was then proposed, not on the initial system, say y(t)

= y(t u(t)), but on a system with a

0

distributed delay: y(t)

= h [d u(t; )] y(t + ), for which

the existence of an optimal solution (i.e., the fundamental

function u(t; )) was shown.

A recent result (Verriest, 2002) might constitute a starting

point for the stabilization problem. Nonlinear equations with

a state dependent delay were considered:

x(t)

= A0 x(t) + A1 x(t h(x(t))

for which the function h(x): R [0; hM ] is assumed to

possess a gradient h with a bounded norm and, in addition,

supx h(x)A0 x = 4 1. The derived asymptotic stability

condition is the existence of positive de.nite matrices P; Q

and R such that:

AT0 P + PA0 + AT1 QA1 + PQ1 P(1 4)1 + R = 0:

Other trends can be found in Petit, 2000.

delay. Such functionals as (31), in this case, have a function h1 of x in the lower bound of the integral terms: Their

di2erentiation reinjects the dynamics, which turns out to be

very inconvenient for the calculus. Another example of such

a control via the delay is given by a mixing tank with an

impeller and a total recycle (Fig. 7) in which a given quantity of salt is injected at the initial time. The salt concentration is measured by means of a conductivity probe which is

placed at a di2erent point. This corresponds to the following

model:

T (u(t))y(t)

= y(t h(u(t)) y(t);

where y(t) = z(t h) is the conductivity measured at the

probe position, z(t) is the conductivity at the injection point,

u(t) is the Vow rate, proportional to the rotation speed of

the impeller, h is the time which the liquid, in total recycle,

takes to Vow from the injector to the probe (then, h is inversely proportional to u, and after rescaling: h(u) = 1=u),

T is the mixing time constant, inversely proportional to the

Vow rate: T (u) = 1=ku. In Dieulot and Richard (2001), the

open-loop tracking of some desired conductivity law yd (t)

(of a piece-wise polynomial type) was solved: Admissibility constraints on yd (t) were expressed, for which the

problem: given yd (t), .nd u(t), can be solved. Its validity with regard to speed limitations (then, 0 6 u 6 uM

and h(u) 1=uM ) was shown on simulations. However,

here again, the closed-loop control still constitutes an open

problem.

delay

Here, it will be argued about two points: (1) advanced

identi.cation methods for estimating the delay behavior are

still expected in real-time; (2) control algorithms taking advantage of the delay knowledge have to be developed. First,

let us make some comments about the bene.ts one can .nd

using additional information on delay values: Obviously,

one can expect that the better the knowledge on the delay

is, the higher the achievable control performances will be.

For instance, in the case of a constant delay h, the simplest

and best information is its value. If it is not available, then

guaranteeing the robustness for h [hm ; hM ] will be convenient. From this point of view, the poorest information

correspond to the most robust case: h 0. Numerous authors, after proposing i.o.d. stabilization results (assumption

h 0), concentrated on delay-dependent ones. 24

6.4.1. Adaptive identi;cation of delays

This part maintains that, even if several works considered

the identi.cation of either the delay or the parameters, the

simultaneous identi.cation remains to be done. Moreover,

the real-time adaptive identi.cation techniques of (varying)

delays still need to improve.

Works on identi.cation of FDEs have shown the complexity of the question (Verduyn-Lunel, 1997). Identifying

the delay is not an easy task for systems with both input and

state delays, or when the delay is varying enough to require

an adaptive identi.er. In what concerns delay identi.cation,

24

1686

several authors use the relay-based approach initiated by Astrom and Hagglund (Majhi & Atherton, 1999; Tan, Wang,

& Lee, 1998), which, however, is not a real-time procedure

since it needs to close some switching feedback loop during

a preliminary identi.cation phase. The adaptive control of

delay systems is not so much developed either (Blanchini &

Ryan, 1999; Foda & Mahmoud, 1998; Verriest, 1999) and

the delay is generally assumed to be known. Note that in

the case of multiple (but constant) delays, theoretical identi.ability conditions for LTI models are given in Belkoura,

Richard, and Orlov (2000) and Orlov, Belkoura, Dambrine,

and Richard (2002) (reducing to weak controllabilitysee

De.nition 8in the case of commensurate delays). Let us

illustrate the diSculty on a simple, .rst-order delay system,

assumed to be asymptotically stable:

vanNieuwstadt (2001), the on-line delay estimation has a

longstanding issue in signal processing. In these applications, the present signal u = u(t) and its delayed value, denoted by v(t) = u(t h) are supposed to be known, which

allows one to implement a standard steepest descent algorithm (69) or a modi.ed, averaged version (70) making use

of the autocorrelation function R() of u:

hk1 );

hk = hk1 ?[v(t) u(t hk1 )]u(t

(69)

d

hZk = hZk1 ? R(hZk1 ):

(70)

d

But, such algorithms have a limited speed of convergence,

which make them inadequate for control issues. The above

paper (Diop et al., 2001), generalizing (Tuch, Feuer, &

Palmor, 1994), introduces the following scheme:

p(t)u(t

h)

h =

[u(t h) u(t h)];

(71)

1 + p(t)u 2 (t h)

d x

x(t

(t) = a(t)

x(t)

+ b(t)

h) + u(t);

dt

p(t)

=

x(t)

= ax(t) + bx(t h);

x() = ()

(67)

for [ h; 0];

x()

= ()

C;

d a

(t) = u(t)x(t);

dt

a(0)

= a0 ;

d b

(t) = u(t)x(t h);

dt

(68a)

= b0 ;

b(0)

(68b)

+ |a(t)|

|x(t)|

+ |b(t)|

|x(t

h)|;

M0 0:

Since the asymptotic stability of (67) insures the boundedness of the gain M (t), it is shown in Belkoura et al. (1998)

]b = b b,

tend to zero for arbitrary initial conditions a0 ; b0 ; ().

But,

if the delay is also to be identi.ed, it seems quite diScult to

generalize Eqs. (68a) and (68b) to di2erential equations in

a variable h(t).

This diSculty is linked to the previous problem of control through the delay value. A possible way

to bypass it, provided the piece of information h [hm ; hM ]

is given, consists (Orlov, Belkoura, Richard, & Dambrine,

2003) in considering a model with multiple delays (with

hi = (hM hm )=(m 1)):

m

d

x(t)

= a(t)

x(t)

+

hi ) + u(t);

bi (t)x(t

dt

i=1

The accuracy of this identi.cation depends on the number m

of implemented delays. However, the computational e2ort

strongly increases with m, which might restrain the real-time

identi.cation possibilities.

p2 (t)u 2 (t h)

;

1 + p(t)u 2 (t h)

p(0) = p0 0:

(72)

of a direct injected diesel engine, thus adjusting the gains of

a simple PI controller. Nevertheless, just recall that: (i) both

the present signal u = u(t) and its delayed value u(t h) are

supposed to be known and their derivative to be bounded as

follows: 0 6 |u(t)|

constant; (iii) all parameters (but the delay) are supposed to

be known; (iv) the investigation of the closed-loop stability

is left for future research: In Diop et al. (2001), u(t h) it

is obtained via an unknown input observer, which creates a

nontrivial controller/observer separation problem.

Another adaptive delay identi.cation scheme can be

found in the book (Kolmanovskii and Myshkis, 1999): If h0

is some approximation of the actual (time-varying) delay

value h(t) = h0 + ]h(t), then the algorithm requires the

measurement of delayed variables: x(t h0 ) and x(t

h0 ),

together with the assumption |]h| h0 . The results are

local (i.e., valid for |]h| small enough) and, here also, the

real-time possibilities are to be checked.

6.4.2. Using stochastic properties of the delay

A good illustration of the introductory arguments (take

advantage of the delay knowledge) was given in Nilsson

et al. (1998): The question was to design control loops closed

over a communication network, and then subject to varying communication delays (jitter phenomenon). A previous

solution (Luck & Ray, 1990) consisted in eliminating the

delay randomness by introducing time bu2ers, large enough

to deliver a constant delay (see also LelevFe et al., 2001).

However, such a solution introduces some extra time delay

in the loop. Nilsson, taking advantage of the delay measurement by adding timestamps in the issued control signals,

obtained a 40% bene.t on a quadratic cost function (under

the sampling period).

More generally, the stability and stabilization of di2erential equations with a stochastic delay were investigated by

several authors (see, e.g., Boukas & Liu, 2002; Katz, 1998;

Kolmanovskii & Nosov, 1986; Kolmanovskii & Shaikhet,

1996; Krtolica et al., 1991; Nilsson et al., 1998; Ray, 1994).

But in these papers, the stability conditions are derived under the assumption that, for each .xed delay value, the corresponding deterministic system is exponentially stable, uniformly with respect to all possible delay values. In other

words, the stability conditions assume the delay to be known

at each moment. In Yamanaka, Ushida, and Shimemura

(1979) as well, the delayed variables come from a partial

di2erential equation of the transport type (1) with a parameter c = h1 depending on a known random coeScient (t)

(a Markov process).

Two papers recently dealt with unknown stochastic delays: Verriest (2002) considered the following coupled differential di2erence equations (with additive white noise w):

d x(t) = [A0 (t)x(t) + A1 y(t h(t)] dt

+ [B0 (t)x(t) + B1 y(t h(t)] dw(t);

y(t) = K(t)x(t) + L(t)y(t h(t)):

The stochastic stability is proven if a coupled system of

Riccati and Liapunov inequations holds and, in addition, the

is less than one on average (the

time-variation of the delay, h,

condition of which being better than the usual: h 1 for all

t). The corresponding result is independent of the delay,

which means here that the mean value of h(t) (bounded) is

not taken into account. For instance, applying the result to

the simple system (27) with a stochastic delay h(t) (thus,

K(t) I; B0 = I; L = B1 = 0) leads to the Riccati equation

(29).

In the second paper, (Kolmanovskii, Maizenberg, &

Richard, 2003), the form of the in.nitesimal operator and

the stochastic stability conditions have been derived without the knowledge of the delay and expressed immediately

in terms of its probability characteristics. The di2erence

equations such as

x(n + 1) = f(n; x(n); : : : ; x(n :(n + 1));

n 0;

(73)

arguments (n; x(n); x(n 1); : : : ; x(n :(n + 1)); : = :(n)

being a Markov stochastic process with the possible values

of delays : = 1; 2; : : : ; r. Here, the conditions take into account the probability transition matrix of the process :(n):

This corresponds to delay-dependent conditions.

6.4.3. Delay information for observers

Several authors proposed observers (or predictors) for

delay systems in the LTI case (for the state space approach,

see references in Darouach (2001) and Choi and Chung

1687

Zhang, and Kovacevic (1997); For the discrete time, see

Wang, Huang, and Unbehausen (1999b)), as well as the

linear stochastic (Kolmanovskii & Myshkis, 1999) and nonlinear (Germani, Manes, & Pepe, 1998) cases. An overview

is given in Sename (2001).

In most cases, the value of the delay (mainly constant)

was involved in the realizations, which means that its measurement was assumed. Note that what is de.ned as observers without internal delay (see Darouach, Pierrot, &

Richard, 1999; Darouach, 2001; Fairmar & Kumar, 1986)

involves the output knowledge at the present and delayed

instants. This means that the delay is known or, at least, is

calculable. Similarly, Leyva-Ramos and Pearson (1995) designed a .nite-dimensional observer (then, without delay)

since it was constructed just for the .nite set of unstable or

poorly damped modes of the delay system: However, the

determination of these modes, here again, requires the delay

knowledge.

In concrete applications, the delay invariance and delay knowledge remain assumptions coming more from the

identi.cation and analysis limits than from technical facts.

So, the robustness with regard to the delay estimation (and

variation) should receive additional interest.

There are presently only few results in which the observer

does not assume the delay knowledge. As far as we know,

all of them are using delay-free observers:

In DeSouza, Palhares, and Peres (1999), a .nitedimensional observer is obtained for linear systems with

delays: The problem was solved in the context of H

.ltering, and the .ltering error was shown to be quadratically stable independently of the delays. This technique

has the advantage of allowing time-varying and multiple

delays.

In Choi and Chung (1996,1997), an H controller is

de.ned from a delay-free observer. The .rst paper considers systems with known parameters, while the latter

includes uncertainties. The delay is supposed to be constant. The solution needs to solve a pair of coupled Riccati

like equations. The computational diSculty is increased

by the coupling of these equations, but examples have

shown that a solution can be possible.

The results in Wang, Huang, and Unbehausen (1999a)

are concerned with H delay-free observers, for stable

systems with a state delay. As in the previous references,

they lead to a set of two Riccati equations. However,

they go on the additional assumption that the considered

system is stable, and the control part is not studied.

These three interesting approaches consider linear systems

and guarantee an H performance for the .ltering error. All

of them, however, still present the same limits:

(1) The system has some state delay(s) but is free of input/output delay. This corresponds to the limit we presented

in the preceding Section 6.1.

1688

(2) They are also based on i.o.d. stability techniques (independent on the delay): As we mentioned in Section 2.2.2,

it would be interesting to reduce the probable conservatism

of such results by taking into account the information on a

delay upper-bound.

7. Conclusion

Faced with the wide number of results connected with

delay systems, we hope that this overview has provided some

enlightenment to the matter. To conclude, let us stress some

of the main lines:

Delay systems constitute a good compromise between the

too simple models with .nite dimension and the great

complexity of PDEs. The behavior features and the structural characteristics of delay systems are particular enough

to justify speci.c techniques.

In what concerns robust stability, the main Liapunov-based

tools have to be used in combination with model transformations, the development of which is still in progress.

In the branch of robust control, results can be roughly

split into two classes: The .rst one consists in systems

with input or output delays (mainly, H performance or

predictor-like techniques), the other in state delays. The

intersection of the two classes is still to be addressed.

Many complex systems with aftere2ect are still inviting further investigation: This is the case, for instance,

of delay systems with strong nonlinearities, as well as

time-varying or state-dependent delays.

Acknowledgements

In 1993, several teams in France initiated a cooperation network on delay systems, supported by French CNRS

(GdR Automatique) since 1999. For their fruitful discussions, the author would like to acknowledge all colleagues related to this group, as well as those involved in

the current 20022004 NSF-CNRS program (managed by

S.I. Niculescu, Fr. and K. Gu, USA). The author is also

grateful to the referees for helping to complete the scope of

this survey. Special and warm thanks are addressed to Prof.

Stephen P. Banks, from the University of SheSeld, for his

kind help in revising the English writing of the preliminary

version of this paper.

References

Abdallah, C., Birdwell, J. D., Chiasson, J., Chupryna, V., Tang, Z., &

Wang, T. (2001). Load balancing instabilities due to time delays in

parallel computations. In Third IFAC workshop on time delay systems,

Sante Fe, NM, December 2001.

Abdallah, C., & Chiasson, J. (2001). Stability of communication networks

in the presence of delays. In Third IFAC workshop on time delay

systems, Sante Fe, NM, December 2001.

Delayed positive feedback can stabilize oscillatory systems. In ACC93

(American control conference) San Francisco, (pp. 3106 3107).

Aernouts, W., Roose, D., & Sepulchre, R. (2000). Delayed control of

a Moore-Greitzer axial compressor model. International Journal of

Bifurcation and Chaos, 10(5), 11571164.

Aggoune, W. (1999). Contribution aC la Stabilisation de SystCemes Non

LinDeaires: Application aux SystCemes Non RDeguliers et aux SystCemes

aC Retards. INRIA/CRAN, University of Metz, France (in French).

Ailon, A., & Gil, M. I. (2000). Stability analysis of a rigid robot with

output-based controller and time-delay. Systems and Control Letters,

40(1), 3135.

Akian, M., Bliman, P. A., & Sorine, M. (1998). P.I. control of nonlinear

oscillations for a system with delay. Research report 3422, INRIA,

May 1998.

Al-Amer, S. H., & Al-Sunni, F. M. (2000). Approximation of time-delay

systems. In ACC00 (American control conference), Chicago, IL (pp.

24912495).

Artstein, Z. (1982). Linear systems with delayed controls: A reduction.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 27(4), 869879.

^ om, K. J., Hang, C. C., & Lim, B. C. (1994). A new Smith predictor

AstrM

for controlling a process with an integrator and long deadtime. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(2), 343345.

Banks, H. T., & Kappel, F. (1979). Spline approximations for functional

di2erential equations. Journal of Di/erential Equations, 34, 496522.

Banks, S. P. (2002). Nonlinear delay systems, Lie algebras and

Lyapunov transformations. IMA Journal of Mathematical Control

and Information, 19(12), 5972.

BartholomFeuM s, A., Dambrine, M., & Richard, J. P. (1997). Bounded

domains and constrained control of linear time-delays systems. JESA,

European Journal of Automatic Systems, 31(6), 10011014.

Battle, C., & Miralles, A. (2000). On the approximation of delay elements

by feedback. Automatica, 36, 659664.

Beghi, A., Lepschy, A., & Viaro, U. (1997). Approximating delay

elements by feedback. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems,

44, 824828.

Belkoura, L., Dambrine, M., Richard, J.-P., & Orlov, Y. (1998). Sliding

mode on-line identi.cation of delay systems. In VSS98, Fifth

international workshop on variable structure systems, Longboat Key,

FL, December 1998 (pp. 230 232).

Belkoura, L., Richard, J. P., & Orlov, Y. (2000). Identi.ability of linear

time delay systems. In Second IFAC workshop on linear time delay

systems, Ancona, Italy, September 2000 (pp. 173176).

Bellen, A., & Zennaro, M. (2001). A free step-size implementation of

second order stable methods for neutral delay di2erential equations.

In Third IFAC workshop on time delay systems, Sante Fe, NM,

December 2001.

Bellman, R., & Cooke, K. L. (1963). Di/erential di/erence equations.

New York: Academic Press.

Bellman, R., & Cooke, K. L. (1965). On the computational solution of

a class of functional di2erential equations. Journal of Mathematical

Analysis and Applications, 12, 495500.

Biberovic, E., Iftar, A., & Ozbay, H. (2001). A solution to the robust

Vow control problem for networks with multiple bottlenecks. In 40th

IEEE CDC01 (Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL,

December 2001 (pp. 23032308).

Blanchini, F., & Ryan, E. P. (1999). A Razumikhin-type lemma for

functional di2erential equations with application to adaptive control.

Automatica, 35(5), 809818.

Bonnet, C., & Partington, J. R. (2001). Stabilization of fractional

exponential systems including delays. Kybernetika, 37(3), 345354.

Bonnet, C., Partington, J. R., & Sorine, M. (1999). Robust control and

tracking of a delay system with discontinuous nonlinearity in the

feedback. International Journal of Control, 72(15), 13541364.

Bonnet, C., Partington, J. R., & Sorine, M. (2000). Robust stabilization

of a delay system with saturating actuator or sensor. International

Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 10, 579590.

Borne, P., Dambrine, M., Perruquetti, W., & Richard, J. P. (2002). Vector

Lyapunov functions: Nonlinear, time-varying, ordinary and functional

di2erential equations. Stability and control: Theory, methods and

applications (Martynyuk ed.) (pp. 49 73). London: Taylor and

Francis.

Boukas, E. K., & Liu, Z. K. (2002). Deterministic and stochastic

time-delay systems. Control engineering. Basel: Birkhauser.

BrethFe, D. (1997). Contribution aC lEtude de la Stabilisation des

SystCemes LinDeaires aC Retards. IRCCyN, University of Nantes, EC

Nantes, France, December 1997 (in French).

Bushnell, L. (2001). Editorial: Networks and control. IEEE Control

System Magazine, 21(1), 2299 (special section on networks and

control).

Byrnes, C. I., Spong, M. W., & Tarn, T. J. (1984). A several

complex variables approach to feedback stabilization of linear

neutral delay-di2erential systems. Mathematical Systems Theory, 17,

97133.

Cao, Y. Y., & Lam, J. (2000). H control of uncertain markovian jump

systems with time delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

45(1), 7783.

Chang, P. H., Lee, J. W., & Park, S. H. (1997). Time delay observer:

A robust observer for nonlinear plants. ASME Journal of Dynamic

Systems Measurement and Control, 119, 521527.

Chang, P. H., & Park, S. H. (1998). The enhanced time delay observer

for nonlinear systems. In 37th IEEE CDC98 (Conference on decision

and control), Tampa, FL, December 1998 (pp. 367368).

Chen, J., & Latchman, H. A. (1995). Frequency sweeping tests for stability

independent of delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

40(9), 16401645.

Cheres, E., Gutman, S., & Palmor, Z. J. (1989). Stabilization of

uncertain dynamic systems including state delay. IEEE Transactions

on Automatic Control, 34(11), 11991203.

Choi, H. H. (1999). An LMI approach to sliding mode control design for

a class of uncertain time delay systems. In ECC99 (Fifth European

control conference), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Choi, H. H., & Chung, M. J. (1995). Memoryless H controller design

for linear systems with delayed state and control. Automatica, 31(6),

917919.

Choi, H. H., & Chung, M. J. (1996). Observer-based H controller design

for state delayed linear systems. Automatica, 32(7), 10731075.

Choi, H. H., & Chung, M. J. (1997). Robust observer-based H controller

design for linear uncertain time-delay systems. Automatica, 33(9),

17491752.

Choi, S. B., & Hedrick, J. K. (1998). An observer-based controller

design method for improving air/fuel characterization of spark ignition

engines. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 6(3),

325334.

Conte, G., & Perdon, A. M. (1995). The disturbance decoupling problem

for systems over a ring. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,

33(3), 750764.

Conte, G., & Perdon, A. M. (1997). Non-interacting control problems

for delay-di2erential systems via systems over rings. JESA, European

Journal on Automatic Systems, 31(6), 10591076.

Conte, G., & Perdon, A. M. (1998). Systems over rings: Theory and

applications. In First IFAC workshop on linear time delay systems,

Grenoble, France, July 1998, Plenary lecture (pp. 223234).

Dambrine, M., Gouaisbaut, F., Perruquetti, W., & Richard, J.-P. (1998).

Robustness of sliding mode control under delays e2ects: A case study.

In CESA98 (IEEE-IMACS conference on computer engineering in

system applications), Vol. 1, Tunisia, April 1998 (pp. 817821).

Dambrine, M., Richard, J. P., & Borne, P. (1995). Feedback control

of time-delay systems with bounded control and state. Mathematical

Problems in Engineering, 1, 7787.

Darouach, M. (2001). Linear functional observers for systems with delays

in state variables. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(3),

491496.

1689

observers without internal delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 44(9), 17111713.

Datko, R. (1998). A paradigm of ill-posedness with respect to time delays.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(7), 964967.

De Santis, A., Germani, A., & Jetto, L. (1993). Approximation of the

algebraic Riccati equation in the Hilbert space of Hilbert-Schmidt

operators. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 4, 847874.

Delfour, M., & Mitter, S. (1972). Controllability, observability and

optimal feedback control of aSne, hereditary, di2erential systems.

SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 10, 298328.

DeSouza, C. E., Palhares, R. E., & Peres, P. L. D. (1999). Robust H

.ltering for uncertain linear systems with multiple time-varying state

delays: An LMI approach. In 38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on

decision and control), Phoenix, AZ, December 1999 (pp. 20232028).

Dieulot, J. Y., & Richard, J. P. (2001). Tracking control of a

nonlinear system with input-dependent delay. In 40th IEEE CDC01

(Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL, December 2001.

Dion, J. M., Dugard, L., & Niculescu, S. I. (2001). Time delay systems.

Kybernetica, 37(3 4) (special issue).

Diop, S., Kolmanovsky, I., Moraal, P., & vanNieuwstadt, M. (2001).

Preserving stability/performance when facing an unknown time delay.

Control Engineering Practice, 9, 13191325.

Dugard, L., & Verriest, E. I. (1997). Stability and control of time-delay

systems. In Lecture notes in control and information sciences, Vol.

228. Berlin: Springer.

Dym, H., Georgiou, T. T., & Smith, M. C. (1995). Explicit formulas for

optimally robust controllers for delay systems. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 40(4), 656669.

El-Khazaly, R. (1998). Variable structure robust control of uncertain

time-delay systems. Automatica, 34(3), 327332.

Elsgolts, L. E., & Norkin, S. B. (1973). Introduction to the theory

and application of di2erential equations with deviating arguments.

In Mathematics in science and engineering, Vol. 105. New York:

Academic Press.

Engelborghs, K., Dambrine, M., & Roose, D. (2001). Limitations of a

class of stabilization methods for delay systems. IEEE Transactions

on Automatic Control, 46(2), 336339.

Fairmar, F. W., & Kumar, A. (1986). Delay-less observers for systems

with delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 31(3),

258259.

Fattouh, A., Sename, O., & Dion, J. M. (2000). A LMI approach to robust

observer design for linear time-delay systems. In 39th IEEE CDC00

(Conference on decision and control), Sydney, Australia, December

2000.

Fiagbedzi, Y. A., & Pearson, A. E. (1986). Feedback stabilization of

linear autonomous time lag systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 31, 847855.

Fliess, M., Marquez, R., & Mounier, H. (2001). PID-like regulators for

a class of linear delay systems. In ECC01 (Sixth European control

conference), Porto, Portugal, September 2001.

Fliess, M., & Mounier, H. (1995). Interpretation and comparison of

various types of delay system controllabilities. In IFAC conference

on system structure and control, Nantes, France (pp. 330 335).

Foda, S. G., & Mahmoud, M. S. (1998). Adaptive stabilization of delay

di2erential systems with unknown uncertainty bounds. International

Journal on Control, 71(2), 259275.

M

Foias, C., Ozbay,

H., & Tannenbaum, A. (1996). Robust control of in.nite

dimensional systems: A frequency domain method. In Lecture notes

in control and information sciences, Vol. 209. Berlin: Springer.

Fridman, E. (2001). New LyapunovKrasovskii functionals for stability of

linear retarded and neutral type systems. System and Control Letters,

43(4), 309319.

Fridman, E., Fridman, L. M., & Shustin, E. I. (2000). Steady modes in a

discontinuous control system with time delay and periodic disturbances.

ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control,

122(4), 732737.

1690

control of linear time-delay systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 47(2), 253270.

Fridman, E., & Shaked, U. (2003). Delay systems. International Journal

of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 13(9) (special issue).

Fridman, L. M., Fridman, E., & Shustin, E. I. (1996). Steady modes and

sliding modes in the relay control systems with time delay. In 35th

IEEE CDC96 (Conference on decision and control), Kobe, Japan

(pp. 4601 4606).

Fu, M., Li, H., & Niculescu, S. I. (1997). Robust stability and

stabilization of time-delay systems via integral quadratic constraint

approach. Lecture notes in control and information sciences, Vol.

228. London: Springer (pp. 101116).

Gao, J., Huang, B., & Wang, Z. (2001). LMI-based robust H control

of uncertain linear jump systems with time-delays. Automatica, 37,

11411146.

Ge, J. H., Frank, P. M., & Lin, C. F. (1996). Robust H state feedback

control for linear systems with state delay and parameter uncertainty.

Automatica, 32(8), 11831185.

Georgiou, T. T., & Smith, M. C. (1992). Robust stabilization in the gap

metric: Controller design for distributed plants. IEEE Transactions

on Automatic Control, 37, 11331143.

Georgiou, T. T., & Smith, M. C. (1997). Robustness analysis of nonlinear

feedback systems: An inputoutput approach. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 42(9), 12001221.

Georgiou, T. T., & Smith, M. C. (1999). BFezout factors and l1 -optimal

controllers for delay systems using a two-parameter compensator

scheme. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(8),

15121521.

Germani, A., Manes, C., & Pepe, P. (1996). Linearization of input

output mapping for nonlinear delay systems via static state feedback.

In CESA96 (IEEE-IMACS conference on computer engineering in

system applications), Vol. 1, Lille, France (pp. 599 602).

Germani, A., Manes, C., & Pepe, P. (1998). A state observer for nonlinear

delay systems. In 37th IEEE CDC98 (Conference on decision and

control), Tampa, FL, December 1998 (pp. 355 360).

Gibson, J. S. (1983). Linear quadratic optimal control of

hereditary di2erential systems: In.nite-dimensional Riccati equations

and numerical approximation. SIAM Journal on Control and

Optimization, 31, 95139.

Glader, C., Hognas, G., MMakilMa, P. M., & Toivonen, H. T. (1991).

Approximation of delay systems: A case study. International Journal

of Control, 53(2), 369390.

Glielmo, L., Santini, S., & Cascella, I. (2000). Stability of linear

time-delay systems: A delay-dependent criterion with a tight

conservatism bound. In ACC00 (American control conference),

Chicago, IL, June 2000 (pp. 45 49).

Glover, K., Lam, J., & Partington, J. R. (1990). Rational approximation

of a class of in.nite dimensional system I: Singular value of

Hankel operator. Mathematics of Control Circulation and Systems, 3,

325344.

Glover, K., & Partington, J. R. (1987). Bounds on the achievable accuracy

in model reduction (Curtain ed.). Berlin: Springer (pp. 95 118).

GlMusing-LMuerNen, H. (1997a). A behavioral approach to delay-di2erential

systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 35(2),

480499.

GlMusing-LMuerNen, H. (1997b). Realization behaviors given by

delay-di2erential equations. In ECC97 (Fourth European control

conference), Brussels, Belgium, July 1997, pp. WE-M D6.

Gorecki, H., Fuksa, S., Grabowski, P., & Korytowski, A. (1989). Analysis

and synthesis of time delay systems. New York: Wiley.

Gouaisbaut, F., Dambrine, M., & Richard, J. P. (2002). Robust control of

systems with variable delay: A sliding mode control design via LMIs.

System and Control Letters, 46(4), 219230.

Gouaisbaut, F., Perruquetti, W., Orlov, Y., & Richard, J. P. (1999a).

A sliding-mode controller for linear time-delay systems. In ECC99

(Fifth European control conference), Karlsruhe, Germany.

control for linear systems with input and state delays. In 38th

IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision and control), Phoenix, AZ,

December 1999 (pp. 4234 4239).

Goubet, A., Dambrine, M., & Richard, J. P. (1995). An extension

of stability criteria for linear and nonlinear time delay systems. In

IFAC conference on system structure and control, Nantes, France

(pp. 278283).

Goubet-Bartholomeus, A., Dambrine, M., & Richard, J. P. (1997).

Stability of perturbed systems with time-varying delay. Systems and

Control Letters, 31, 155163.

Gu, K. (1999). A generalized discretization scheme of Lyapunov

functional in the stability problem of linear uncertain time-delay

systems. International Journal on Robust and Nonlinear Control, 9,

114.

Gu, G., Khargonekar, P. P., & Lee, E. B. (1992). Approximation

of in.nite-dimensional systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 34(6), 832852.

Gu, K. (2001). Discretization schemes for LyapunovKrasovskii

functionals in time delay systems. Kybernetica, 37(4), 479504.

Gu, K., & Niculescu, S. I. (1999). Additional dynamics in transformed

time-delay systems. In 38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision

and control), Phoenix, AZ, December 1999 (pp. 4673 4677).

Gu, K., & Niculescu, S. I. (2001). Further remarks on additional dynamics

in various model transformations of linear delay systems. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(3), 497500.

Hale, J. K., & Verduyn-Lunel, S. (2002). Strong stabilization of neutral

functional di2erential equations. IMA Journal of Mathematical

Control Information, 19(12), 524.

Hale, J. K., & Verduyn-Lunel, S. M. (1993). Introduction to functional

di2erential equations. In Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 99.

New York: Springer.

Hennet, J. -C., & Tarbouriech, S. (1998). Stability conditions of

constrained delay systems via positive invariance. International

Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 8(3), 265278.

Hirai, K., & Satoh, Y. (1980). Stability of a system with variable

time-delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 25(3),

552554.

Hotzel, R., & Fliess, M. (1998). On linear systems with a fractional

derivation: Introductory theory and examples. Mathematics and

Computers in Simulation, 45(3 4), 385395.

Hsia, T. C., & Gao, L. S. (1990). Robot manipulator control

using decentralized time-invariant time-delayed controller. In IEEE

international conference on robotics and automation, Cincinnati (pp.

2070 2075).

Huang, W. (1989). Generalization of Lyapunovs theorem in a linear

delay system. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications,

142, 8394.

Huang, Y. P., & Zhou, K. (2000). Robust stability of uncertain time

delay systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(11),

21692173.

Infante, E. F., & Castelan, W. B. (1978). A Lyapunov functional

for a matrix di2erence-di2erential equation. Journal of Di/erential

Equations, 29, 439451.

Ionescu, V., Niculescu, S. I., Dion, J. M., Dugard, L., & Li, H.

(2001). Generalized Popov theory applied to state-delayed systems.

Automatica, 37(1), 9197.

Ionescu, V., Oara, C., & Weiss, M. (1998). Generalized Riccati theory.

New York: Wiley.

Ivanov, A. F., & Losson, J. (1995). Stable rapidly oscillating solutions in

delay equations with negative feedback. Preprint CRM-2292, Center

Research Mathematics, University of MontrFeal (25p).

Izmailov, R. (1996). Analysis and optimization of feedback control

algorithms for data transfers in high-speed networks. SIAM Journal

of Control and Optimization, 34, 17671780.

Jalili, N., & Olgac, N. (1998). Optimum delayed feedback vibration

absorber for MDOF mechanical structure. In 37th IEEE CDC98

(Conference on decision and control), Tampa, FL, December 1998

(pp. 4734 4739).

Jankovic, M. (2001). Control LyapunovRazumikhin functions and robust

stabilization of time delay systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 46(7), 10481060.

Jeong, H. S., & Lee, C. W. (1997). Time delay control with state

feedback for azimuth motion of the frictionless positioning device.

IEEEASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2(3), 161168.

Jun, M., & Safonov, M. G. (2000). Stability analysis of a system

with time-delayed states. In ACC00 (American control conference),

Chicago, IL (pp. 949 952).

Karrakchou, J., & Rabah, R. (1996). Quelques eF lFements sur la

controlabilitFe des systaemes en dimension in.nie. In CNRS conf.

analyse et commande des systCemes avec retards, Nantes, France,

March 1996 (pp. 6178) (in French).

Kato, J. (1973). On LiapunovRazumikhin type theorems for functional

di2erential equations. The Mathematical Society of Japan, Kobe,

Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 16(3), 225239.

Katz, I. I. (1998). Liapunov Method in Stability of Stochastic Systems.

Ural Academy of Railway, Ekaterinburg.

Khan, B. Z., & Lehman, B. (1996). Setpoint PI controllers for systems

with large normalized dead time. IEEE Transactions on Control

Systems Technology, 4(4), 459466.

Kharitonov, V. (1998). Robust stability analysis of time delay systems: A

survey. In Fourth IFAC conference on system structure and control,

Nantes, France, 810 July 1998, Penary lecture (pp. 112).

Kharitonov, V. L., & Melchior-Aguliar, D. (2000). On delay-dependent

stability conditions. System and Control Letters, 40(1), 7176.

Kharitonov, V. L., & Zhabko, A. P. (2001). LyapunovKrasovski

approach to robust stability of time delay systems. In First IFAC/IEEE

symposium on system structure and control, Prague, Technical report,

August 2001.

Kim, W. S., Hannaford, B., & Bejczy, A. K. (1992). Force-reVection and

shared compliant control in operating telemanipulators with time-delay.

IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 8(2), 176185.

Kojima, A., Uchida, K., Shimemura, E., & Ishijima, S. (1994). Robust

stabilization of a system with delays in control. IEEE Transactions

on Automatic Control, 39(8), 16941698.

Kolmanovskii, V. B. (1995). Stability of some nonlinear functional

di2erential equations. Journal of Nonlinear Di/erential Equations, 2,

185198.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., Maizenberg, T. L., & Richard, J. P. (2003).

Mean square stability of di2erence equations with a stochastic delay.

Nonlinear Analysis, 52(3), 795804.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., & Myshkis, A. (1992). Applied theory of functional

di2erential equations. In Mathematics and Applications, Vol. 85.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academy.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., & Myshkis, A. (1999). Introduction to the

theory and applications of functional di/erential equations. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academy.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., Niculescu, S. I., & Gu, K. (1999a). Delay e2ects on

stability: A survey. In 38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision

and control), Phoenix, AZ, December 1999 (pp. 19931998).

Kolmanovskii, V. B., Niculescu, S. I., & Richard, J. P. (1999b). On the

LiapunovKrasovskii functionals for stability analysis of linear delay

systems. International Journal on Control, 72(4), 374384.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., & Nosov, V. R. (1986). Stability of functional

di/erential equations. London: Academic Press.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., & Richard, J. P. (1999). Stability of some linear

systems with delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(5),

984989.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., & Shaikhet, L. E. (1996). Control of systems with

aftere2ect. In Transaction of Mathematical monographs, Vol. 157.

Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

Kolmanovskii, V. B., Tchangani, P. A., & Richard, J. P. (1998). Stability

of linear systems with discrete-plus-distributed delay: Application

of some model transformations. In MTNS98 (13th symposium on

1691

1998.

Krasovskii, N. N. (1963). Stability of motion. Stanford University Press,

Stanford CA, USA, (translation by J. Brenner).

M

M Chan, H., GMoktas, H., Winkelman, J., &

Krtolica, R., Ozguner,

U.,

Liubakka, M. (1991). Stability of linear feedback systems with random

communication delays. International Journal of Control, 59(4), 925

953.

Kwon, H. W., & Pearson, A. E. (1980). Feedback stabilization of

linear systems with delayed control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 25(2), 266269.

Lafay, J. F., Fliess, M., Mounier, H., & Sename, O. (1996). Sur la

commandabilitFe des systaemes linFeaires a retards. In CNRS conference

analysis and control of systems with delays, Nantes, France, 1996

(pp. 19 42) (in French).

Lakshmikantham, V., & Leela, S. (1969). Di/erential and integral

inequalities, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.

Lee, J. H., Moon, Y. S., & Kwon, W. H. (1996). Robust H controller

for state and input delayed systems with structured uncertainties. In

35th IEEE CDC96 (Conference on decision and control), Kobe,

Japan (pp. 20922096).

Lehman, B. (2002). The inVuence of delays when averaging slow and

fast oscillating systems: Overview. IMA Journal of Mathematical

Control Information, 19(12), 201216.

Lehman, B., & Weibel, S. P. (1998). Averaging theory for functional

di2erential equations. In 37th IEEE CDC98 (Conference on decision

and control), Tampa, FL, December 1998 (pp. 13521357).

LelevFe, A., Fraisse, P., & Dauchez, P. (2001). Telerobotics over IP

networks: Towards a low level real time architecture. In IROS01

(International conference on intelligent robots and systems), Maui,

Hawaii, October 2001.

Lewis, R. M. (1979). Control-delayed system properties via an ordinary

model. International Journal of Control, 30(3), 477490.

Leyva-Ramos, J., & Pearson, A. E. (1995). An asymptotic modal observer

for linear autonomous time lag systems. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 40, 12911294.

Li, X., & De Souza, C. E. (1996). Robust stabilization and H control

of uncertain linear time-delay systems. In Proceedings of 13th IFAC

world congress, San Francisco, CA, Vol. H (pp. 113118).

Loiseau, J. J. (1994). A 2-D transfert without minimal realization. In

Sprann94, IMACS, Lille, France (pp. 97100).

Loiseau, J. J. (1998). Algebraic tools for the control and stabilization

of time-delay systems. In First IFAC workshop on linear time delay

systems, Grenoble, France, July 1998, Plenary lecture (pp. 234 249).

Loiseau, J. J. (2001). Invariant factors assignment for a class of time-delay

systems. Kybernetika, 37(3), 265276.

Loiseau, J. J., & BrethFe, D. (1997a). 2-D exact model matching with

stability, the structural approach. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of

ScienceTechnical Sciences, 45(2), 309317.

Loiseau, J. J., & BrethFe, D. (1997b). The use of 2-D systems theory

for the control of time-delay systems. JESA, European Journal of

Automatic Systems, 31(6), 10431058.

Loiseau, J. J., & BrethFe, D. (1998). An e2ective algorithm for .nite

spectrum assignment of single-input systems with delays. Mathematics

and Computers in Simulation, 45(3 4), 339348.

Loiseau, J. J., & Rabah, R. (1997). Analysis and control of time-delay

systems. JESA. European Journal of Automatic Systems, 31(6)

(Special issue of JESA).

Louisell, J. (1991). A stability analysis for a class of di/erential-delay

equations having time-varying delay. Lecture Notes in Mathematics,

Vol. 1475 (Busenberg and Martelli ed.), chapter Delay di2erential

equations and dynamical systems (pp. 225 242). Berlin: Springer.

Louisell, J. (2001). Delay di2erential systems with time-varying delay:

New directions for stability theory. Kybernetika, 37(3), 239252.

Luck, R., & Ray, A. (1990). An observer-based compensator for

distributed delays. Automatica, 26(5), 903908.

1692

Luo, N., & De la Sen, M. (1992). State feedback sliding mode controls

of a class of time-delay systems. In ACC92 (American control

conference), Chicago, IL (pp. 894 895).

Luo, N., & De la Sen, M. (1993). State feedback sliding mode control of

a class of uncertain time-delay systems. IEE Proceedings-D, 140(4),

261274.

MacDonald, N. (1989). Biological delay systems: Linear stability theory.

In Cambridge Studies in Mathematics Biology, Vol. 8. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mahmoud, M. S. (2000). Robust control and ;ltering for time-delay

systems. Control Engineering Series. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Majhi, S., & Atherton, D. (1998). A new Smith predictor and controller

for unstable and integrating processes with time delay. In 37th IEEE

CDC98 (Conference on decision and control), Tampa, FL, December

1998 (pp. 13411345).

Majhi, S., & Atherton, D. P. (1999). A novel identifcation method for

time delay processes. In ECC99 (Fifth European control conference),

Karslruhe, Germany.

MMakilMa, P. M., & Partington, J. R. (1999a). Laguerre and Kautz shift

approximations of delay systems. International Journal of Control,

72, 932946.

MMakilMa, P. M., & Partington, J. R. (1999b). Shift operator induced

approximations of delay systems. SIAM Journal of Control and

Optimization, 37(6), 18971912.

Manitius, A., & Olbrot, A. W. (1979). Finite spectrum assignment problem

for systems with delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

24(4), 541553.

Mascolo, S. (1999). Congestion control in high speed communication

networks using the Smith principle. Automatica, 35, 19211935.

Mazenc, F., MondiFe, S., & Niculescu, S. I. (2001). Global asymptotic

stabilization for chains of integrators with a delay in the input. In 40th

IEEE CDC01 (Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL,

December 2001.

Megretski, A., & Rantzer, A. (1997). System analysis via integral

quadratic constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

42(6), 819830.

Meinsma, G., & Zwart, H. (2000). On H control for dead-time systems.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(2), 272285.

MFerigot, A., & Mounier, H. (2000). Quality of service and MPEG4 video

transmission. In MTNS00 (14th symposium on mathematical theory

of networks and systems), Perpignan, France.

Mirkin, L. (2000). On the extraction of dead-time controllers from

delay-free parametrizations. In Second IFAC workshop on linear time

delay systems, Ancona, Italy, September 2000 (pp. 157162).

Mirkin, L., & Tadmor, G. (2002). H control of systems with I/O

delay: A review of some problem-oriented methods. IMA Journal of

Mathematical Control and Information, 19(12), 185200.

MondiFe, S., Niculescu, S. I., & Loiseau, J. J. (2001). Delay robustness of

closed loop .nite assignment for input delay systems. In Third IFAC

workshop on time delay systems, Sante Fe, NM, December 2001 (pp.

233238).

MondiFe, S., & Santos, O. (2000). Une condition nFecessaire pour

limplantation de lois de commandes a retards distribuFees. In

CIFA2000, 1e IEEE conf. internat. francophone dAutomatique,

Lille, France, July 2000 (pp. 201206).

Moog, C. H., Castro-Linares, R., Velasco-Villa, M., & Marquez-Martinez,

L. A. (2000). The disturbance decoupling problem for time-delay

nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(2),

305309.

Mounier, H., Mboup, M., Petit, N., Rouchon, P., & Seret, D. (1998). High

speed network congestion control with a simpli.ed time-varying delay

model. In IFAC conference on system, structure, control, Nantes,

France.

Mounier, H., Rouchon, P., & Rudolph, J. (1997). Some examples of

linear systems with delays. JESA, European Journal of Automatic

Systems, 31(6), 911926.

delay systems: A chemical reactor example. International Journal of

Control, 71, 871890.

Nagpal, K. M., & Ravi, R. (1997). H control and estimation problems

with delayed measurements: State space solutions. SIAM Journal on

Control and Optimization, 35(4), 12171243.

Nguang, S. K. (1998). Robust H control of a class of nonlinear systems

with delayed state and control: A LMI approach. In 37th IEEE

CDC98 (Conference on decision and control), Tampa, FL, December

1998 (pp. 2384 2389).

Nguang, S. K. (2001). Comments on Robust stabilization of uncertain

input-delay systems by SMC with delay compensation. Automatica,

37, 1677.

Niculescu, S. I. (1998). H memoryless control with an -stability

constraint for time delays systems: An LMI approach. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(5), 739743.

Niculescu, S. I. (2001). Delay e2ects on stability. In Lecture notes in

control and information sciences, Vol. 269. Berlin: Springer.

Niculescu, S. I., & Chen, J. (1999). Frequency sweeping tests for

asymptotic stability: A model transformation for multiple delays. In

38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision and control), Phoenix,

USA, December 1999 (pp. 4678 4683).

Niculescu, S. I., De Souza, C. E., Dugard, L., & Dion, J. M. (1998).

Robust exponential stability of uncertain systems with time-varying

delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(5), 743748.

Niculescu, S. I., Dion, J. M., & Dugard, L. (1996). Robust stabilization

for uncertain time-delay systems containing saturating actuators. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(5), 742747.

Niculescu, S. I., & Lozano, R. (2001). On the passivity of linear delay

systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(3), 460464.

Niculescu, S. I., & Richard, J. P. (2002). Analysis and design of delay

and propagation systems. IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and

Information, 19(12), 1227 (special issue).

Niculescu, S. I., Verriest, E. I., Dugard, L., & Dion, J. M. (1997).

Stability and robust stability of time-delay systems: A guided

tour. Lecture notes in control and information sciences, Vol. 228

(pp. 171). London: Springer.

Niemeyer, G. (1996). Using wave variables intime delayed force

reHecting teleoperation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Niemeyer, G., & Slotine, J. J. (1998). Towards force-reVecting

teleoperation over the internet. In IEEE international conference

on robotics and automation, Leuven, Belgium, May 1998 (pp.

1909 1915).

Nilsson, J. (1998). Real-time control systems with delays. Ph.D. thesis,

Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,

Sweden.

Nilsson, J., Bernhardsson, B., & Wittenmark, B. (1998). Stochastic

analysis and control of real-time systems with random delays.

Automatica, 34(1), 5764.

Oguchi, T., Watanabe, A., & Nakamizo, T. (1998). Inputoutput

linearization of retarded nonlinear systems by an extended Lie

derivative. In 37th IEEE CDC98 (Conference on decision and

control), Tampa, FL, December 1998 (pp. 1364 1369).

Ohta, Y., & Kojima, A. (1999). Formulas for Hankel singular values and

vectors for a class of input delay systems. Automatica, 35, 201215.

Olbrot, A. W. (1973). Algebraic criteria of controllability to zero function

for linear constant time-lag systems. Control and Cybernetics, 2(1/2),

5977.

Olbrot, A. W. (1984). A suSciently large time delay in feedback loop must

destroy exponential stability of any decay rate. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 29, 367368.

Olbrot, A. W. (1998). Finite spectrum property and predictors. In First

IFAC workshop on linear time delay systems, Grenoble, France, July

1998, Plenary lecture (pp. 251260).

Orlov, Y., Belkoura, L., Dambrine, M., & Richard, J. P. (2002). On

identi.ability of linear time-delay systems. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 47(8), 13191324.

Orlov, Y., Belkoura, L., Richard, J. P., & Dambrine, M. (2003). Adaptive

identi.cation of linear time-delay systems. International Journal on

Robust and Nonlinear Control, 13(9), 857872 (Special issue on TDS

E. Fridman and U. Shaked).

Orlov, Y. V. (1988). Optimal delay controlPart I. Automation and

Remote Control, 49(12), 15911596 (Transl. from Avtomatika i

Telemekhnika, No. 12, 1988).

Orlov, Y. V. (2000). Discontinuous unit feedback control of uncertain

in.nite-dimensional systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 45(5), 834843.

Orlov, Y. V., & Utkin, V. I. (1987). Sliding mode control in

in.nite-dimensional systems. Automatica, 6, 753757.

Oucheriah, S. (1999). Robust tracking and model following of uncertain

dynamic delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(7),

14731477.

Palmor, Z. J. (1996). Time-delay compensationSmith predictor and its

modi.cations. In W.S. Levine (Ed.), The control handbook (pp. 224

237). CRSC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Partington, J. R. (1991). Approximation of unstable in.nite-dimensional

systems using coprime factors. System and Control Letters, 16(2),

8996.

Pepe, P. (1996). Il controllo LQG dei sistemi con ritardo. Department

of Electrical Engineering and Univiversity lAquila, Italy (in Italian).

Perruquetti, W., & Barbot, J. P. (2002). Sliding mode control for

engineers. In Control Engineering Series, Vol. 11. New York: Marcel

Dekker.

Petit, N. (2000). SystCemes aC Retards. Platitude en GDenie des ProcDedDes

D

et Controle de Certaines Equations

des Ondes. Ecole des Mines de

Paris (in French).

Picard, P., & Lafay, J. F. (1995). Further results on controllability of linear

systems with delay. In ECC95 (Third European control conference,

Rome) (pp. 33133318).

Picard, P., LaFay, J. F., & Kucera, V. (1997). Feedback realization of

nonsingular precompensators for linear systems with delays. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 42(6), 848852.

Picard, P., Lafay, J. F., & Kucera, V. (1998). Model matching for linear

systems with delays and 2-D systems. Automatica, 35(3), 183191.

Picard, P., Sename, O., & Lafay, J. F. (1996). Observers and observability

indices for linear systems with delays. In CESA96 (IEEE-IMACS

conference on computer engineering in system applications), Lille,

France, Vol. 1, July 1996 (pp. 8186).

Quet, P., Ramakrishnan, S., Ozbay, H., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2001). On

the H controller design for congestion control in communication

networks with a capacity predictor. In 40th IEEE CDC01

(Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL, December 2001

(pp. 598 603).

Rabah, R., & Malabre, M. (1999). On the structure at in.nity of linear

delay systems with application to the disturbance decoupling problem.

Kybernetica, 35, 668680.

Ray, A. (1994). Output feedback control under randomly varying

distributed delays. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 17(4),

701711.

Razumikin, B. S. (1956). On the stability of systems with a delay.

Prikladnava Matematika i Mekhanika, 20, 500512 (in Russian).

Rekasius, Z. V. (1980). A stability test for systems with delays. In

Proceedings on joint automatic control conference. San Francisco,

CA (pp. TP9-A).

Richard, J. P. (1998). Some trends and tools for the study of time

delay systems. In Second conference IMACS-IEEE CESA98,

computational engineering in systems applications, Tunisia, April

1998, Plenary lecture (pp. 27 43).

Richard, J. P. (2000). Linear time delay systems: Some recent advances

and open problems. In Second IFAC workshop on linear time delay

systems. Ancona, Italy, September 2000, Plenary lecture.

Richard, J. P., Gouaisbaut, F., & Perruquetti, W. (2001). Sliding mode

control in the presence of delay. Kybernetica, 37(4), 277294.

1693

Nonlinear delay systems: Tools for a quantitative approach to

stabilization. Lecture notes in control and information sciences, Vol.

228 (pp. 218240). London: Springer.

Richard, J. P., & Kolmanovskii, V. (1998). Special Issue on Delay

systems. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 45 (3 4).

Roh, Y. H., & Oh, J. H. (1999). Robust stabilization of uncertain

input-delay systems by sliding mode control with delay compensation.

Automatica, 35, 16811685.

Rudolph, J., & Mounier, H. (2000). Trajectory tracking for -Hat

nonlinear delay systems with a motor example. Lecture notes in

control and information sciences, Vol. 258 (Respondek ed.) (pp.

339 352). London, Isidori, Lamnabhi, Laguarrigue: Springer.

Safonov, M. G. (1980). Stability and robustness of multivariable

feedback systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sename, O. (1994). Sur la commandabilitDe et le dDecouplage des systCemes

linDeaires aC retards. Laboratoire dAutomatique de Nantes, University

of Nantes and EC Nantes, France (in French).

Sename, O. (2001). New trends in design of observers for time-delay

systems. Kybernetica, 37(4), 427458.

Shakkottai, S., Srikant, R. T., & Meyn, S. (2001). Boundedness of utility

function based congestion controllers in the presence of delay. In 40th

IEEE CDC01 (Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL,

December 2001 (pp. 616 621).

Shin, K. G., & Cui, X. (1995). Computing time delay and its e2ects on

real-time control systems. IEEE Transactions on Control and System

Technology, 3(2), 218224.

Shyu, K. K., & Yan, J. J. (1993). Robust stability of uncertain time-delay

systems and its stabilization by variable structure control. International

Journal of Control, 57, 237246.

Silva, G. J., Datta, A., & Bhattacharyya, S. P. (2001). Controller design

via PadFe approximation can lead to instability. In 40th IEEE CDC01

(Conference on decision and control), Orlando, FL, December 2001

(pp. 4733 4737).

Sira-Ramirez, H., & Angulo-Nunez, M. I. (1998). On the passivity based

regulation of a class of delay di2erential systems. In 37th IEEE

CDC98 (Conference on decision and control), Tampa, FL, December

1998 (pp. 297298).

Slater, G. L., & Wells, W. R. (1972). On the reduction of optimal time

delay systems to ordinary ones. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 17, 154155.

Smith, O. J. M. (1959). A controller to overcome dead time. ISA Journal

of Instrument Society of America, 6, 2833.

Smith, O. J. M. (1957). Posicast control of damped oscillatory systems.

In Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 45 (pp. 1249 1255).

Sontag, E. D. (1977). The lattice of minimal realizations of response

maps over rings. Mathematical Systems Theory, 11, 169175.

Tadmor, G. (2000). The standard H problem in systems with a

single input delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(3),

382397.

Tan, K. K., Wang, Q. K., & Lee, T. H. (1998). Finite spectrum assignment

control of unstable time delay processes with relay tuning. Industrial

Engineering and Chemical Research, 37(4), 13511357.

Tarbouriech, S., & Gomes Da Silva, J. M. (2000). Synthesis of controllers

for continuous time delay systems with saturating controls via LMIs.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(1), 105111.

Teel, A. R. (1998). Connection between Razumikhin-type theorems

and the ISS nonlinear small gain theorem. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 43(7), 960964.

Thowsen, A. (1981). An analytical stability test for a class of linear

time-delay systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 25,

735736.

Tits, A. L., & Balakrishnan, V. (1998). Small-? theorem with

frequency-dependent uncertainty bounds. Mathematics of Control

Signals and Systems, 11(3), 220243.

Tsoi, A. C. (1978). Recent advances in the algebraic system theory of

delay di/erential equations. Recent theoretical developments in control

(Gregson ed.) (pp. 67127). New York: Academic Press.

1694

i Telemekhnika, 7, 107129.

Tuch, J., Feuer, A., & Palmor, Z. J. (1994). Time delay estimation

in continuous linear time-invariant systems. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 39, 823827.

Van Keulen, B. (1993). H control for distributed parameter systems:

A state space approach. Basel: Birkhauser.

VanAssche, V., Dambrine, M., Lafay, J. F., & Richard, J. P. (1999). Some

problems arising in the implementation of distributed-delay control

laws. In 38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision and control),

Phoenix, AZ, December 1999 (pp. 4668 4672).

Verduyn-Lunel, S. M. (1997). Identi.cation problems in functional

di2erential equations. In 36th IEEE CDC97 (Conference on decision

and control), San Diego, CA, December 1997 (pp. 4409 4413).

Verriest, E. I. (1999). Robust stability and adaptive control of time-varying

neutral systems. In 38th IEEE CDC99 (Conference on decision and

control), Phoenix, AZ, December 1999 (pp. 4690 4695).

Verriest, E. I. (2002). Stability of systems with state-dependent

and random delays. IMA Journal on Mathematical Control and

Information, 19(12), 103114.

Verriest, E. I., & Aggoune, W. (1998). Stability of nonlinear di2erential

delay systems. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 45(3 4),

257268.

Walton, K., & Marshall, J. E. (1987). Direct method for TDS stability

analysis. IEE Proceedings, Part D, 134, 101107.

Wang, Z., Huang, B., & Unbehausen, H. (1999a). Robust H observer

design for uncertain time-delay systems: (I) the continuous case. In

IFAC 14th world congress, Beijing, China (pp. 231236).

Wang, Z., Huang, B., & Unbehausen, H. (1999b). Robust H observer

design of linear state delayed systems with parametric uncertainty: The

discrete-time case. Automatica, 35(6), 11611167.

Wang, Z. Q., & Skogestad, S. (1993). Robust controller design

for uncertain time delay systems. Lecture notes in control and

information sciences, Vol. 185 (Curtain, Bensoussan and Lions ed.)

(pp. 610 622). Berlin: Springer.

Wang, Q. G., & Zhang, Y. (2001). Robust identi.cation of continuous

systems with dead-time from step responses. Automatica, 37,

377390.

Watanabe, K., Nobuyama, E., & Kojima, K. (1996). Recent advances in

control of time-delay systems a tutorial review. In 35th IEEE CDC96

(Conference on decision and control), Kobe, Japan, December 1996

(pp. 20832089).

Weiss, L. (1967). On the controllability of delay-di2erential equations.

SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 5(4), 575587.

Willems, J. (1971). The analysis of feedback systems. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Willems, J. (1991). Paradigms and puzzles in the theory of

dynamical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 36,

259294.

Wu, F., & Grigoriadis, K. M. (2001). LPV systems with parameter-varying

time delays: Analysis and control. Automatica, 37, 221229.

Yamanaka, K., Ushida, K., & Shimemura, E. (1979). Optimal control of

systems with random delay. International Journal on Control, 29(3),

489495.

and state feedback for input time-delay systems. International Journal

on Control, 66(4), 603617.

Yoon, M. G., & Lee, B. H. (1997). A new approximation method

for time-delay systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

42(7), 10081012.

Youcef-Toumi, K., & Ito, O. (1990). A time delay controller design

for systems with unknown dynamics. ASME Journal on Dynamic

Systems Measurement and Control, 112, 133142.

Youcef-Toumi, K., & Reddy, S. (1992a). Analysis of linear time invariant

systems with time delay. ASME Journal on Dynamic Systems

Measurement and Control, 114(4), 623633.

Youcef-Toumi, K., & Reddy, S. (1992b). Dynamic analysis anf control

of high speed and high precision active magnetic bearings. ASME

Journal on Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control, 14(4), 544

555.

Youcef-Toumi, K., & Wu, S. T. (1992). Inputoutput linearization

using time delay control. ASME Journal on Dynamic Systems

Measurement and Control, 114, 1019.

Zhang, J., Knospe, C. R., & Tsiotras, P. (2000). Stability of

linear time-delay systems: A delay-dependent criterion with a tight

conservatism bound. In ACC00 (American control conference),

Chicago, IL, June 2000 (pp. 14581462).

Zheng, F., Cheng, M., & Gao, W. B. (1995). Variable structure control

of TDS with a simulation study on stabilizing combustion in liquid

propellant rocket motors. Automatica, 31(7), 10311037.

Zhou, K., & Khargonekar, P. P. (1987). On the weighted sensitivity

minimization problem for delay systems. System and Control Letters,

8, 307312.

Ecole Centrale de Lille, France (French

Grande Ecole). His major research .elds

are delay systems, stabilization and control

of continuous systems (linear/nonlinear),

with applications to Transportations and

Sciences & Technologies of Information and Communication. He is heading

the team Nonlinear and Delay Systems

(http://syner.free.fr/) of the LAIL (Lab. of

Aut. control & Computer Sc. for Industry,

CNRS UMR 8021).

Born in 1956, he obtained his D.Sc. in Physical Sciences in 1984, Ph.D.

in Automatic Control in 1981, Dipl. Eng. and DBA in Electronics in

1979. He is a Member of the IEEE (Senior), of the Russian Academy

of Nonlinear Sciences, of the IFAC TC2.2 Linear Systems and of the

editorial board of the International Journal of Systems Science.

He is President of the GRAISyHM (Research Group in Integrated Automation and Man-Machine Systems, 220 researchers from 10 labs of

Region NordPas de Calais, France) and Director of the doctoral researches training in automatic control, University of Lille and Ecole Centrale de Lille. He is in charge of several programs and research networks

(CNRS and French Ministry of Research) and belongs to the Advisory

Committee of the IEEE biennial conference CIFA, ConfFerence Internationale Francophone dAutomatique (http://cifa2004.ec-lille.fr/).

- 048646248XEquationsBUploaded byDoug Allen
- Robust Control and Filtering for Time Delay Systems Automation and Control EngineeringUploaded bynmz341
- Essentials+of+Robust+ControlUploaded byMuhammad_Ali_M_5032
- Sampled-Data Modeling and Analysis of PWM DC-DC Converters Part I Closed-Loop CircuitsUploaded byYufei Zhou
- Artificial Intelligence in EducationUploaded byNicole Stevens
- SCM - 2015Uploaded byCS & IT
- Analysis and Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems.pdfUploaded byAnonymous QlJjisdlLI
- A+SURVEY+ON+SEMI-TENSOR+PRODUCT+OF+MATRICESUploaded byCrepen Lemurios
- 2012Uploaded byStudy Iit
- A Case Study on the Impact of Automated Assessment in Engineering MathematicsUploaded byate515
- Dazzo SensitivityUploaded bySh Gh
- Transcritical BifurcationUploaded byDave Millington
- Rob Perform10Uploaded byblister_xblade
- Time AnalysisUploaded byaripratna
- stab97Uploaded byKarthikPrakash
- Critical Speeds of Gyroscopes CourseUploaded byUma Mageshwari
- enocNMallon_ID120Uploaded bynjm001
- Lecture 11Uploaded byEdutam
- ROS04092002-13Uploaded byantle
- Discrete Competition ModelsUploaded byCarlos Pizarro Gomez
- Handout 3Uploaded byMunira Abdullah
- 1732 15 Aspen APC WebUploaded byAlberto Fonseca Uribe
- Signals And Systems (ECE 3640) - lecture 1 - Discrete-time systems.pdfUploaded byGeorges Kouroussis
- Course OutlineUploaded bysegws
- 9780521807609_indexUploaded byEngr Nayyer Nayyab Malik
- DownloadUploaded byJhon Torres
- A06050105.pdfUploaded byShikhar Agarwal
- Completed Lesson Plan S1 ShinuUploaded byakhilvj
- Group 3Uploaded byJan Jakob Lameijer
- File ListUploaded byMichal Žoha

- Chi-Tsong Chen - Linear System Theory and Design - 3edUploaded byDiego Schneider
- TDPA, YeUploaded bymaniahmad
- Time-Delay Systems an Overview of Some Recent Advances and Open ProblemsUploaded bymaniahmad
- Introduction to Mathematical Thinking - Devlin, KeithUploaded byAmaury Guillermo Baez
- 317982Uploaded bymaniahmad
- Research PaperUploaded bymaniahmad
- 7th Research PaperUploaded bymaniahmad
- 1Uploaded bymaniahmad

- Life Cycle Models GuidelinesUploaded bygeoinsys
- Work Breakdown Structures de PMI.pdfUploaded byGladys Sánchez
- Test Strategy WorkFlowUploaded byДашенька Большерёва-Рыкова
- MIS-DSS.pptUploaded byshanky22
- Control System Design Based on Frequency Response Analysis.pdfUploaded byViệt Việt
- Samuel 2017Uploaded bySuprapto Root Adrw
- ! Generalized Lyapunov and Invariant Set Theorems for Nonlinear Dynamical SystemsUploaded byhmalikn7581
- HazopUploaded byRiccardo Gastaldo
- A systems thinking perspective - Desconhecido.pdfUploaded byrodrigodel9331
- White BoxUploaded byrajen_2cool
- 1 a NoC Traffic Suite Based on Real ApplicationsUploaded byHossam Fadeel
- Automatic Control Systems by Benjamin C. KuoUploaded byMuhammadFahadIjaz
- AI.docxUploaded byDrilon Avdiu
- V1I8-IJERTV1IS8046Uploaded bymohamedfatehy
- Servo MotorUploaded byLeo Lonardelli
- PCM UserguideUploaded byIonescu Viorel
- R00013-Fuzzy neural-cast 1Uploaded byRoxana Boicu
- PDCA ApprochUploaded byUsman Hamid
- Efficiency of Reverse CyclesUploaded byjack316
- Pid Control: University of GavleUploaded bybob
- Cybernetics.Uploaded byAbhishek Periwal
- Chapter 4 - Maintenance Planning and Scheduling (Full Chapter) NewUploaded byMazlina Ashari
- Control systemUploaded byNishiya Vijayan
- MIT Software TestingUploaded byritoprotim
- MIT16_30F10_lec06Uploaded byMoHsin Kh
- QuasiMoroUploaded byLaye Gueye
- ISO 9001-2000 CHECKLISTUploaded bysdkim594966
- Simulink Based Model for Analysing the Ziegler – Nichols Tuning Algorithm as applied on Speed Control of DC MotorUploaded bykfathi55
- AI and Machine Learning for Testers Jason ArbonUploaded bycappereira13
- Types of ControlUploaded byMaheshwari Dharmaraj