Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | |
A | [−200−0.9] | [01−1−1] | [01−1−2] |
Ad | [−10−1−1] | [000−1] | [00−11] |
In this paper, the stability problem with considering time-varying delays of linear systems is investigated. By constructing new augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii (L-K) functionals based on auxiliary function-based integral inequality (AFBI) and considering Finsler's lemma, a stability criterion is derived. Based on the previous result, a less conservative result is proposed through the augmented zero equality approach. Finally, numerical examples are given to show the effect of the proposed criteria.
Citation: Seunghoon Lee, Youngjae Kim, Yonggwon Lee, Myeongjin Park, Ohmin Kwon. Relaxed stability conditions for linear systems with time-varying delays via some novel approaches[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2454-2467. doi: 10.3934/math.2021149
[1] | Patarawadee Prasertsang, Thongchai Botmart . Improvement of finite-time stability for delayed neural networks via a new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 998-1023. doi: 10.3934/math.2021060 |
[2] | Jenjira Thipcha, Presarin Tangsiridamrong, Thongchai Botmart, Boonyachat Meesuptong, M. Syed Ali, Pantiwa Srisilp, Kanit Mukdasai . Robust stability and passivity analysis for discrete-time neural networks with mixed time-varying delays via a new summation inequality. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4973-5006. doi: 10.3934/math.2023249 |
[3] | Wentao Le, Yucai Ding, Wenqing Wu, Hui Liu . New stability criteria for semi-Markov jump linear systems with time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4447-4462. doi: 10.3934/math.2021263 |
[4] | Yude Ji, Xitong Ma, Luyao Wang, Yanqing Xing . Novel stability criterion for linear system with two additive time-varying delays using general integral inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8667-8680. doi: 10.3934/math.2021504 |
[5] | Rupak Datta, Ramasamy Saravanakumar, Rajeeb Dey, Baby Bhattacharya . Further results on stability analysis of Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy time-delay systems via improved Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16464-16481. doi: 10.3934/math.2022901 |
[6] | Xingyue Liu, Kaibo Shi . Further results on stability analysis of time-varying delay systems via novel integral inequalities and improved Lyapunov-Krasovskii functionals. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 1873-1895. doi: 10.3934/math.2022108 |
[7] | Narongrit Kaewbanjak, Watcharin Chartbupapan, Kamsing Nonlaopon, Kanit Mukdasai . The Lyapunov-Razumikhin theorem for the conformable fractional system with delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4795-4802. doi: 10.3934/math.2022267 |
[8] | Hyung Tae Choi, Jung Hoon Kim . An L∞ performance control for time-delay systems with time-varying delays: delay-independent approach via ellipsoidal D-invariance. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30384-30405. doi: 10.3934/math.20241466 |
[9] | Li Wan, Qinghua Zhou, Hongbo Fu, Qunjiao Zhang . Exponential stability of Hopfield neural networks of neutral type with multiple time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8030-8043. doi: 10.3934/math.2021466 |
[10] | Zhifeng Lu, Fei Wang, Yujuan Tian, Yaping Li . Lag synchronization of complex-valued interval neural networks via distributed delayed impulsive control. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5502-5521. doi: 10.3934/math.2023277 |
In this paper, the stability problem with considering time-varying delays of linear systems is investigated. By constructing new augmented Lyapunov-Krasovskii (L-K) functionals based on auxiliary function-based integral inequality (AFBI) and considering Finsler's lemma, a stability criterion is derived. Based on the previous result, a less conservative result is proposed through the augmented zero equality approach. Finally, numerical examples are given to show the effect of the proposed criteria.
Time-delay is well known as the source of instability, degradation of quality, and vibration in dynamic systems [1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The delay is ineluctable for almost all systems with input-process-output and feedback structures, so the stability analysis of the time-delay systems (TDSs) is the prerequisite before the systems can be operated. From the perspective of the frequency domain analysis, the linear systems are asymptotically stable if and only if the spectrum (system poles) lies in the left half plane. Since the spectrum for TDSs ˙x(t)=Ax(t)+Adx(t−h) is {s:det(sI−A−Ade−sh)=0}, the infinite dimensional states (poles) exist. For this reason, because it is very difficult to solve the matter of the stability for TDSs in analytical methods, various methods [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] for the problem have been studied by using the numerical method based on the Lyapunov stability theorem. According to the Lyapunov stability theorem, the system is asymptotically stable if there exists the Lyapunov function V(x(t)):Rn→R such that V(x)>0 for all x≠0 and ˙V(x)<0. When considering this, the structure of V(x) is not fixed. This means that the effectiveness of the analysis method is affected by the structure of V(x). As a result, this is the open problem in the TDSs.
In general, stability analysis for TDSs can be divided into two types: delay-dependent and delay-independent analysis. In general, the former containing information about the time delay value is less conservative than the latter, especially if the time delay value is small. Then, many researchers have proposed various delay-dependent stability criteria for TDSs. In this regard, recently, Zhang et al. [23] proposed delay-dependent-matrix-based reciprocally convex inequality and estimation approaches were introduced in [23] for stability analysis with time-varying delays of linear systems. Through the augmented L-K functional approach, Park et al. [24] studied the stability problem for linear systems with time-varying delays. In [25], by developing the delay-product-type L-K functional, new delay-dependent stability criteria were proposed. In [26], the double integral inequality and the L-K functional were proposed based on the second-order derivative. By introducing appropriate intermediate polynomial, some novel delay-product types of inequality-based functions were constructed in [27]. In [28], the stability criterion specified as a negativity condition for a quadratic function parameterized by the delay was presented.
From the above considerations, it makes sense to inquire the following thing: "Considering the AFBI-inspired Lyapunov-Krasowskii function, can the feasible areas of stability criteria be improved?". Before we ask the answer to the question, the following facts should be minded through [12]: when examining the conservatism of stability criteria, two momentous indicators exist. One is to find the maximum value of delay bound for guaranteeing asymptotic stability of systems. The other is to reduce the number of the decision variables, in the other words, the computational burdens, while keeping the maximum value of the delay binding the same. In particular, many studies have focused on the former. In this work, prioritizing the former, the main goal in this paper is to propose a stability criterion which provides the delay bounds for guaranteeing asymptotic stability of TDSs as large as possible. In addition, an improved stability criterion obtained by the augmented zero equality approach is also proposed, taking into account both the former and the latter.
From the discussions so for, novel delay-dependent stability criteria for linear systems with time-varying delays are proposed. The highlight of this paper can be summarized:
● Some novel L-K functionals which provide more cross terms among the components of the augmented vector are proposed in Theorem 1. Among them, newly constructed L-K functional inspired by AFBI is included.
● From the relationships of the elements of the augmented vectors, one augmented zero equality is established and Finsler's lemma with the newly constructed zero equality are applied to the derived stability condition. As a result, both reducing of the number of decision variables and extending the feasible region will be done in Theorem 2 comparing with Theorem 1.
Through the simulation of numerical examples, the advantages, effectiveness and superiorities of the proposed theorems are illustrated.
Notations. Rn and Rm×n denote, respectively, n-vectors with the l2-norm ‖⋅‖ and m×n matrices. Sn (Sn+) is the sets of n×n symmetric (positive definite) matrices. In and 0m⋅n are, respectively, the n×n identity matrix and the m×n zero matrix. col{⋯} stands for the column vector. Sym{X} is the sum of X and its transpose. X[α] means the sum of a constant matrix X1 and a linear matrix αX2 for all real scalars α. The symmetric terms will be denoted by ⋆ when necessary.
Consider linear systems as follows
˙x(t)=Ax(t)+Adx(t−ν(t)),x(t)=χ(t),t∈[−νm,0] | (2.1) |
where χ(t) is an initial function, x(t) is the state vector in Rn, A and Ad are system matrices in Rn×n. The time-delay function ν(t) is considered to meet the following conditions:
0≤ν(t)≤νm,μl≤˙ν(t)≤μu<1, | (2.2) |
where νm>0, μu≥0 and μl are known scalar values.
To derive the stability criteria for the system (2.1), the following useful lemmas are employed.
Lemma 1. [13] For matrix H∈Sn+ and vector f:[a,b]→Rn, the following inequality holds:
∫ba(s−a)kfT(s)Hf(s)ds≥(∫baPl,k(s)⊗f(s)ds)T(Ψl,k⊗H)(∫baPl,k(s)⊗f(s)ds), |
where scalars a<b and semi-positive integers k, l, for i=0,1,…,l, and other notations were defined at the work [13].
Remark 1. Lemma 1 with k=0 and l=1 is WBI [14] and with k=0 and l=2 is corresponded to AFBI [15].
Lemma 2. [29] For matrices M1, M2 ∈Sn+ and a constant α∈(0,1), if there exist matrices S1, S2 ∈Sn+, F1, F2 ∈Rn×n such that
[M1−αS1−αF1−(1−α)F2⋆M2−(1−α)S2]≥0 |
for all α=0,1, then the following inequality holds:
[1αM10⋆11−αM2]≥[M1+(1−α)S1αF1+(1−α)F2⋆M2+αS2]. |
Lemma 3. [30] For v∈Rn, F∈Sn, G∈Rm×n such that rank{G}<n, the following formulas are equivalent:
(i)vTFv<0,∀Gv=0,x≠0,(ii)(G⊥)TFG⊥<0,(iii)∃W∈Rn×m:F+WG+GTWT<0. |
In this section, by the use of LMI framework, new two stability conditions for the system (2.1) are introduced. To simplify matrix representation, the block entry matrices can be expressed as ϑi=[0n⋅(i−1)n,In,0n⋅(16−i)n]T∈R16n×n for i=1,2,…,16, ϑ0=016n⋅n.
The following theorem is the stability criterion of system (2.1).
Theorem 1. The system (2.1) with the condition (2.2) is asymptotically stable when obtaining matrices R∈S7n+, Gi∈S6n+ (i=1,2,3), Q∈S2n+, W∈Sn+, Sj∈S6n+, Pj∈Sn, Fj∈R6n×6n (j=1,2), ϝk∈Rn×16n (k=1,2,3,4) that satisfies the following LMIs :
(Γ⊥)T(Ψ[0,μl]−Ω[0])Γ⊥<0, | (3.1) |
(Γ⊥)T(Ψ[0,μu]−Ω[0])Γ⊥<0, | (3.2) |
(Γ⊥)T(Ψ[νm,μl]−Ω[νm])Γ⊥<0, | (3.3) |
(Γ⊥)T(Ψ[νm,μu]−Ω[νm])Γ⊥<0, | (3.4) |
[Q1−F2⋆Q2−S2]≥0, | (3.5) |
[Q1−S1−F1⋆Q2]≥0 | (3.6) |
with several notations
˜ν(t)=νm−ν(t),νd(t)=1−˙ν(t),ξka,b(f(u))=∫t−bt−a∫t−bs2⋯∫t−bskf(u)dudsk⋯ds2,ζ(t)=col{[x(t)x(t−ν(t))x(t−νm)˙x(t)˙x(t−νm)],[∫tt−ν(t)x(s)ds∫t−ν(t)t−νmx(s)ds1ν(t)ξ2ν(t),0(x(u))1˜ν(t)ξ2νm,ν(t)(x(u))1ν2(t)ξ3ν(t),0(x(u))1˜ν2(t)ξ3νm,ν(t)(x(u))],[1ν(t)∫tt−ν(t)x(s)ds1˜ν(t)∫t−ν(t)t−νmx(s)ds1ν2(t)ξ2ν(t),0(x(u))1˜ν2(t)ξ2νm,ν(t)(x(u))],˙x(t−ν(t))},Ψ1[˙ν(t)]=Sym{[ϑ1,ϑ3,ϑ6,ϑ7,ϑ8,ϑ9,ϑ2]R[ϑ4,ϑ5,ϑ1−νd(t)ϑ2,νd(t)ϑ2−ϑ3,−˙ν(t)ϑ14−νd(t)ϑ12+ϑ1,˙ν(t)ϑ15−ϑ13+νd(t)ϑ2,νd(t)ϑ16]T},Ψ2[ν(t),˙ν(t)]=[ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]G1[ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]T−[ϑ5,ϑ3,ϑ1−ϑ3,ϑ6+ϑ7,ϑ1,ϑ2]G1[ϑ5,ϑ3,ϑ1−ϑ3,ϑ6+ϑ7,ϑ1,ϑ2]T+Sym{[ϑ1−ϑ3,ϑ6+ϑ7,νmϑ1−ϑ6−ϑ7,ν(t)ϑ8+˜ν(t)(ϑ6+ϑ9),νmϑ1,νmϑ2]×G1[ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ4,νd(t)ϑ16]T},Ψ3[ν(t),˙ν(t)]=[ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]G2[ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]T−νd(t)[ϑ16,ϑ2,ϑ1−ϑ2,ϑ6,ϑ1,ϑ2]G2[ϑ16,ϑ2,ϑ1−ϑ2,ϑ6,ϑ1,ϑ2]T+Sym{[ϑ1−ϑ2,ϑ6,ν(t)ϑ1−ϑ6,ν(t)ϑ8,ν(t)ϑ1,ν(t)ϑ2]×G2[ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ4,ϑ1,ϑ4,νd(t)ϑ16]T},Ψ4[ν(t),˙ν(t)]=νd(t)[ϑ16,ϑ2,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]G3[ϑ16,ϑ2,ϑ0,ϑ0,ϑ1,ϑ2]T−[ϑ5,ϑ3,ϑ2−ϑ3,ϑ7,ϑ1,ϑ2]G3[ϑ5,ϑ3,ϑ2−ϑ3,ϑ7,ϑ1,ϑ2]T+Sym{[ϑ2−ϑ3,ϑ7,˜ν(t)ϑ2−ϑ7,˜ν(t)ϑ9,˜ν(t)ϑ1,˜ν(t)ϑ2]×G3[ϑ0,ϑ0,νd(t)ϑ16,νd(t)ϑ2,ϑ4,νd(t)ϑ16]T},Ψ5=ν2m[ϑ4,ϑ1]Q[ϑ4,ϑ1]T+νm(ϑ1P1ϑT1−ϑ2P1ϑT2+ϑ2P2ϑT2−ϑ3P2ϑT3),Ψ6[ν(t)]=νmϑ4WϑT4−νmϑ5WϑT5−Sym{(ϑ1−ϑ3)W(ϑ4−ϑ5)T}−3Sym{[ϑ1+ϑ3−(2/νm)(ϑ6+ϑ7)]W[ϑ4+ϑ5−(2/νm)(ϑ1−ϑ3)]T}−5Sym{[ϑ1−ϑ3+(6/νm)(ϑ6+ϑ7)−(12/ν2m)(ν(t)ϑ8+˜ν(t)ϑ9+˜ν(t)ϑ6)]×W[ϑ4−ϑ5+(6/νm)(ϑ1−ϑ3)+(12/ν2m)(ϑ6+ϑ7−νmϑ1)]T},Ψ7[ν(t)]=Sym{(ν(t)ϑ12−ϑ6)ϝ1ΠT+(˜ν(t)ϑ13−ϑ7)ϝ2ΠT+(ν(t)ϑ14−ϑ8)ϝ3ΠT+(˜ν(t)ϑ15−ϑ9)ϝ4ΠT}, |
Ψ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]=Ψ1[˙ν(t)]+Ψ2[ν(t),˙ν(t)]+Ψ3[ν(t),˙ν(t)]+Ψ4[ν(t),˙ν(t)]+Ψ5+Ψ6[ν(t)]+Ψ7[ν(t)],Π=[ϑ1,ϑ2,…,ϑ16],Λ1=[ϑ1−ϑ2,ϑ6,−ϑ1−ϑ2+2ϑ12,ϑ6−2ϑ8,ϑ1−ϑ2+6ϑ12−12ϑ14,ϑ6−6ϑ8+12ϑ10],Λ2=[ϑ2−ϑ3,ϑ7,−ϑ2−ϑ3+2ϑ13,ϑ7−2ϑ9,ϑ2−ϑ3+6ϑ13−12ϑ15,ϑ7−6ϑ9+12ϑ11], |
˜Qi=Q+[0PiPi0],Qi=[˜Qi0003˜Qi0005˜Qi](i=1,2) |
Ω[ν(t)]=[ΛT1ΛT2]T[Q1+(1−ν(t)νm)S1ν(t)νmF1+(1−ν(t)νm)F2⋆Q2+ν(t)νmS2][ΛT1ΛT2], |
Γ=AϑT1+AdϑT2−InϑT4. | (3.7) |
Proof. Let us choose the following L-K functional candidate:
V(t)=5∑i=1Vi+ˆV, | (3.8) |
where
V1=ϖT(t)Rϖ(t),V2=∫tt−νmβT(t,s)G1β(t,s)ds,V3=∫tt−ν(t)βT(t,s)G2β(t,s)ds,V4=∫t−ν(t)t−νmβT(t−ν(t),s)G3β(t−ν(t),s)ds,V5=νm∫tt−νm∫tsϕT(u)Qϕ(u)duds,ˆV=νm∫tt−νm˙xT(s)W˙x(s)ds−(∫tt−νm˙x(s)ds)TW(∫tt−νm˙x(s)ds)−3ρT1(t)Wρ1(t)−5ρT2(t)Wρ2(t). |
Here, the vectors ϖ(t), ϕ(s), β(b,s), ρ1(t) and ρ2(t) are defined as
ϖ(t)=col{x(t),x(t−νm),∫tt−ν(t)x(s)ds,∫t−ν(t)t−νmx(s)ds,1ν(t)ξ2ν(t),0(x(u)),1νm−ν(t)ξ2νm,ν(t)(x(u)),x(t−ν(t))},ϕ(s)=col{˙x(s),x(s)},β(b,s)=col{ϕ(s),∫bsϕ(u)du,x(t),x(t−ν(t))},ρ1(t)=−∫tt−νm˙x(s)ds+2νmξ2νm,0(˙x(u)),ρ2(t)=∫tt−νm˙x(s)ds−6νmξ2νm,0(˙x(u))+12ν2mξ3νm,0(˙x(u))=[ϑ1−ϑ3+6νm(ϑ6+ϑ7)−12ν2m(ν(t)ϑ8+(νm−ν(t))ϑ9+(νm−ν(t))ϑ6)]Tζ(t). |
The time-derivative of Vi (i=1,2,…,4) can obtained as
![]() |
(3.9) |
˙V2=χT1(0)G1χ1(0)−χT2(νm,0)G1χ2(νm,0)+2χT4(νm,0)G1χ3(0), | (3.10) |
˙V3=χT1(0)G2χ1(0)−(1−˙ν(t))χT2(ν(t),0)G2χ2(ν(t),0)+2χT4(ν(t),0)G2χ3(0), | (3.11) |
˙V4=(1−˙ν(t))χT1(ν(t))G3χ1(ν(t))−χT2(νm,ν(t))G3χ2(νm,ν(t))+2χT4(νm,ν(t))G3χ3(ν(t)), | (3.12) |
where
χ1(a)=col{ϕ(t−a),02n⋅1,x(t),x(t−ν(t))},χ2(b,c)=col{ϕ(t−b),∫t−ct−bϕ(s)ds,x(t),x(t−ν(t))},χ3(d)=col{02n⋅1,(1−˙d)ϕ(t−d),˙x(t),(1−˙ν(t))˙x(t−ν(t))},χ4(e,f)=col{∫t−ft−eϕ(s)ds,ξ2e,f(ϕ(u)),(e−f)x(t),(e−f)x(t−ν(t))}. |
So, it can be arranged that:
4∑i=1˙Vi=ζT(t)(Ψ1[˙ν(t)]+Ψ2[ν(t),˙ν(t)]+Ψ3[ν(t),˙ν(t)]+Ψ4[ν(t),˙ν(t)])ζ(t). | (3.13) |
Calculating the time-derivative of V5 leads to
˙V5=ν2mϕT(t)Qϕ(t)−νm∫tt−νmϕT(s)Qϕ(s)ds. | (3.14) |
Consider two zero equalities:
0=ζT(t)(νmϑ1P1ϑT1−νmϑ2P1ϑT2)ζ(t)−2νm∫tt−ν(t)ζT(s)(ϑ4P1ϑT1)ζ(s)ds, | (3.15) |
0=ζT(t)(νmϑ2P2ϑT2−νmϑ3P2ϑT3)ζ(t)−2νm∫t−ν(t)t−νmζT(s)(ϑ4P2ϑT1)ζ(s)ds | (3.16) |
with symmetric matrices P1 and P2.
Adding the equalities (3.15) and (3.16) to (3.14), we can obtain that:
˙V5=ζT(t)Ψ5ζ(t)−νm∫tt−ν(t)ϕT(s)Qϕ(s)ds−νm∫t−ν(t)t−νmϕT(s)Qϕ(s)ds−2νm∫tt−ν(t)ζT(s)(ϑ4P1ϑT1)ζ(s)ds−2νm∫t−ν(t)t−νmζT(s)(ϑ4P2ϑT1)ζ(s)ds=ζT(t)Ψ5ζ(t)−νm∫tt−ν(t)ϕT(s)˜Q1ϕ(s)ds−νm∫t−ν(t)t−νmϕT(s)˜Q2ϕ(s)ds. | (3.17) |
Using Lemma 1 with k=0 and l=2, integral terms of ˙V5 can be bounded as
−νm∫tt−ν(t)ϕT(s)˜Q1ϕ(s)ds≤−νmν(t)(∫tt−ν(t)ϕ(s)ds)T˜Q1(∫tt−ν(t)ϕ(s)ds)−3νmν(t)ρT3(t)˜Q1ρ3(t)−5νmν(t)ρT4(t)˜Q1ρ4(t)=−νmν(t)ζT(t)ΛT1Q1Λ1ζ(t), | (3.18) |
where ρ3(t)=∫tt−ν(t)ϕ(s)ds−2ν(t)ξ2ν(t),0(ϕ(u)), ρ4(t)=∫tt−ν(t)ϕ(s)ds−6ν(t)ξ2ν(t),0(ϕ(u))+12ν2(t)ξ3ν(t),0(ϕ(v)), and, in the same way, we get
−νm∫t−ν(t)t−νmϕT(s)˜Q2ϕ(s)ds≤−νmνm−ν(t)ζT(t)ΛT2Q2Λ2ζ(t). | (3.19) |
Thus, from (3.14)–(3.19), ˙V5 has the following bound as
˙V5≤ζT(t)(Ψ5−νmν(t)ΛT1Q1Λ1−νmνm−ν(t)ΛT2Q2Λ2)ζ(t). | (3.20) |
Then, by utilizing Lemma 2 with the conditions (3.5) and (3.6), ˙V5 can be rebounded as
˙V5≤ζT(t)(Ψ5−[ΛT1ΛT2]T[Q1+(1−ν(t)νm)S1ν(t)νmF1+(1−ν(t)νm)F2⋆Q2+ν(t)νmS2][ΛT1ΛT2]⏟Ω[ν(t)])ζ(t). | (3.21) |
Note that, from Lemma 1 with k=0 and l=2, ˆV is always positive if the W is the positive definite matrix. By taking the time-derivative of ˆV, it can be deduced that:
˙ˆV=νm˙xT(t)W˙x(t)−νm˙xT(t−νm)W˙x(t−νm)−2(x(t)−x(t−νm))TW(˙x(t)−˙x(t−νm))−3⋅2ρT1(t)W˙ρ1(t)−5⋅2ρT2(t)W˙ρ2(t)=ζT(t)Ψ6[ν(t)]ζ(t), | (3.22) |
where
˙ρ1(t)=˙x(t)+˙x(t−νm)−2νm(x(t)−x(t−νm)),˙ρ2(t)=˙x(t)−˙x(t−νm)+6νm(x(t)−x(t−νm))+12ν2m(∫tt−νmx(s)ds−νmx(t))=[ϑ4−ϑ5+6νm(ϑ1−ϑ3)+12ν2m(ϑ6+ϑ7−νmϑ1)]Tζ(t). |
Introducing the free weighting matrices ϝi (i=1,2,3,4), we have
0=ζT(t)Sym{(ν(t)ϑ12−ϑ6)ϝ1ΠT}ζ(t), | (3.23) |
0=ζT(t)Sym{((νm−ν(t))ϑ13−ϑ7)ϝ2ΠT}ζ(t), | (3.24) |
0=ζT(t)Sym{(ν(t)ϑ14−ϑ8)ϝ3ΠT}ζ(t), | (3.25) |
0=ζT(t)Sym{((νm−ν(t))ϑ15−ϑ9)ϝ4ΠT}ζ(t). | (3.26) |
The above zero equalities (3.23)–(3.26) can be combined as
0=ζT(t)Ψ7[ν(t)]ζ(t). | (3.27) |
From (3.9)–(3.27), ˙V(t) can be bounded as
˙V(t)≤ζT(t)(Ψ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[ν(t)])ζ(t). | (3.28) |
Thus, a sufficient stability condition is organized as
ζT(t)(Ψ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[ν(t)])ζ(t)<0subjectto$Γζ(t)=0$. | (3.29) |
By Lemma 3 (i) and (ii), (3.29) is the same as (Γ⊥)T(Ψ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[ν(t)])Γ⊥<0. From the convexity of ν(t)∈[0,νm] and ˙ν(t)∈[μl,μu], if the LMIs (3.1)–(3.4) are satisfied with (3.5) and (3.6), then inequality (3.29) holds. This means that Theorem 1 guarantee the asymptotic stability of the system (2.1).
Remark 2. In Theorem 1, from V1 to V4 in (3.8), new combination of the state vectors are considered, which provides more cross terms in LMIs for stability condition of system (2.1). Inspired by AFBI [15], one newly constructed L-K functional ˆV in (3.8) is introduced for the first time. As an outcome of the time-derivatives of ˆV, ζT(t)Ψ6[ν(t)]ζ(t) is added in stability condition. Through the comparison of the obtained maximum delay bounds provided by Theorem 1 with the existing works for the same numerical example, it will be verified that the proposed L-K functional can reduce the conservatism of stability conditions.
Finally, based on Theorem 1, a further advanced outcome is introduced in Theorem 2.
Theorem 2. The system (2.1) with the condition (2.2) is asymptotically stable when obtaining matrices R∈S7n+, Gi∈S6n+ (i=1,2,3), Q∈S2n+, Pj∈Sn, W∈Sn+, Sj∈S6n+, Fj∈R6n×6n (j=1,2) that satisfies the following LMIs with (3.5) and (3.6):
(ˆΓ⊥[0])T(ˆΨ[0,μl]−Ω[0])ˆΓ⊥[0]<0, | (3.30) |
(ˆΓ⊥[0])T(ˆΨ[0,μu]−Ω[0])ˆΓ⊥[0]<0, | (3.31) |
(ˆΓ⊥[νm])T(ˆΨ[νm,μl]−Ω[νm])ˆΓ⊥[νm]<0, | (3.32) |
(ˆΓ⊥[νm])T(ˆΨ[νm,μu]−Ω[νm])ˆΓ⊥[νm]<0, | (3.33) |
where
![]() |
Proof. From Theorem 1, a stability condition without considering (3.23)–(3.26) for system (2.1) can be written by
˙V(t)≤ζT(t)(ˆΨ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[˙ν(t)])ζ(t)<0subjectto$ˆΓ[ν(t)]ζ(t)=0$. | (3.34) |
Note that the four zero equations:
0=(ν(t)ϑ12−ϑ6)Tζ(t), | (3.35) |
0=((νm−ν(t))ϑ13−ϑ7)Tζ(t), | (3.36) |
0=(ν(t)ϑ14−ϑ8)Tζ(t), | (3.37) |
0=((νm−ν(t))ϑ15−ϑ9)Tζ(t). | (3.38) |
Above zero equations and Γ are incorporated into one augmented zero equality as
![]() |
(3.39) |
By Lemma 3 (ⅰ) and (ⅲ), for a matrix Z with an appropriate dimension, (3.34) can be expressed as
ζT(t)(ˆΨ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[˙ν(t)])ζ(t)<0subjectto$ˆΓ[ν(t)]ζ(t)=0$⇔(ˆΨ[ν(t),˙ν(t)]−Ω[˙ν(t)])+Sym{ZˆΓ[ν(t)]}<0. | (3.40) |
Since above inequality (3.40) is affinely dependent on ν(t) and ˙ν(t), if the following four inequalities hold for ν(t) and ˙ν(t),
(ˆΨ[0,μl]−Ω[μl])+Sym{ZˆΓ[0]}<0,(ˆΨ[0,μu]−Ω[μu])+Sym{ZˆΓ[0]}<0,(ˆΨ[νm,μl]−Ω[μl])+Sym{ZˆΓ[νm]}<0,(ˆΨ[νm,μu]−Ω[μu])+Sym{ZˆΓ[νm]}<0, | (3.41) |
then system (2.1) is asymptotically stable. By Lemma 3 (ⅱ) and (ⅲ), the feasibility of (3.41) can be checked from (3.30)–(3.33). Other terms are omitted because they are very similar to those in Theorem 2.
Remark 3. In Theorem 1, through new L-K functionals and the equalities (3.23)–(3.26), the improved result was obtained. However, in this case, the free weighting matrices ϝi(i=1,2,3,4) contained in (3.27) result in a large amount of computation for the result. Therefore, the authors proposed the augmented zero approach to remove the free weighting matrices in Theorem 2. This approach reduces the amount of computation because it eliminates the free weight matrices. It also helps to obtain a less conservative result than Theorem 1.
Remark 4. In the very recent works [25,26,27,28], various L-F functionals and mathematical techniques are utilized to obtain the maximum allowable bound that guarantees the stability of the systems. In particular, the stability of the system was studied through the non-convex matrix inequality conditions [31,32]. However, in this work, through the augmented zero equality approach, both important things are met when analyzing the stability of a time delay system. One is to find the maximum delay bound ensuring the asymptotic stability of the system. The other is to reduce the number of decision variables, that is, the computational burden. Thus, via numerical examples, the superiority and effectiveness of the proposed idea presented in Theorems 1 and 2 will be verified.
This section shows the superiority of the proposed results through numerical examples listed in Table 1. Within Table 2 for Example 1, the most recent results are compared with those obtained in Theorems 1 and 2. First, it can be checked that Theorem 1 provides wider delay bounds than the existing works [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. This means the newly proposed L-K functionals in Theorem 1 plays a key role to enlarge the feasible region of stability condition. Also, Theorem 2 provides better results than Theorem 1 as well as other results. Now, let us look at the result listed in Table 2 for Example 1. Theorem 1 gives better results than most of the results listed in the Table 2, but Theorem 2 is superior to all of those methods. Thus, from Tables 2, 3 and 4, one can see that the stability results based on AFBI give reinforced ones for the three representative examples mentioned in a great number of papers for checking the conservatism of stability criteria for systems (2.1). Furthermore, in Table 4, Theorem 2 provides remarkable improved results. Note that, one can easily confirmed that while Examples 1 and 2 is delay-dependent stable, Example 3 is delay-independent stable. Here, in case of the delay-dependent stable, the value of the delay bound is finite as the value of the analytic bound. As is well known, the analytic bounds of stability for Examples 1 and 2 are 6.1725 and π, respectively. When μu=μl=0 in Theorem 2, 6.1689 and 3.1366 can be obtained, respectively. This means that, because the bounds obtained by Theorem 2 are less than the analytic bounds, Theorem 2 provides the reasonable results. Therefore, the obtained results listed in Examples 1, 2 and 3 are reasonable.
Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | |
A | [−200−0.9] | [01−1−1] | [01−1−2] |
Ad | [−10−1−1] | [000−1] | [00−11] |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 4.8313 | 4.1428 | 3.1487 | 2.7135 |
[21] Th.1 | 4.8297 | 4.1398 | 3.1555 | 2.7307 |
[22] Th.3 | 4.8441 | 4.1419 | 3.1171 | 2.6983 |
[23] Th.3 | 4.8562 | 4.1764 | 3.1831 | 2.7391 |
[24] Th.3 | 4.9061 | 4.2011 | 3.1786 | 2.7155 |
[25] Th.2 | 4.940 | 4.262 | 3.304 | 2.862 |
[26] Th.1 | 4.9176 | 4.2043 | 3.2025 | 2.7980 |
[27] | 4.996 | 4.308 | 3.251 | 2.867 |
Theorem 1 | 4.9573 | 4.3000 | 3.3551 | 2.9280 |
Theorem 2 | 5.9906 | 5.6588 | 4.7612 | 4.1329 |
μu(=−μl) | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
[20] Th.1 | 2.5733 | 2.4202 | 2.0053 |
[21] Th.1 | 2.5733 | 2.4252 | 2.0199 |
[22] Th.3 | 2.5903 | 2.4382 | 2.0260 |
[24] Th.3 | 2.65 | 2.50 | 2.10 |
[26] Th.1 | 2.804 | 2.634 | 2.107 |
Theorem 1 | 2.6626 | 2.5205 | 2.1260 |
Theorem 2 | 3.1364 | 3.1361 | 3.1348 |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 7.1672 | 4.5179 | 2.4158 | 1.8384 |
[21] Th.1 | 7.1765 | 4.5438 | 2.4963 | 1.9225 |
[22] Th.3 | 7.1905 | 4.5275 | 2.4473 | 1.8562 |
[23] Th.3 | 7.2611 | 4.6380 | 2.5898 | 2.0060 |
[24] Th.3 | 7.5501 | 4.9021 | 2.7140 | 2.0546 |
[26] Th.1 | 7.4899 | - | 2.7539 | 2.1853 |
[27] | 7.297 | 4.625 | 2.624 | 2.038 |
Theorem 1 | 7.5775 | 4.9414 | 2.7640 | 2.1103 |
Theorem 2 | 173.8199 | 77.5481 | 21.0155 | 8.6559 |
Example 4. Consider the metal cutting process [33]:
m¨y(t)+c˙y(t)+ky(t)=−F(y(t)−y(t−ν(t))), |
where m is the mass of the roll, c is the damping coefficient, k is the stiffness coefficient, F is the stiffness coefficient of the contact, ν(t) is the roll rotation time, and y(t) is displacement of the roll. By defining x(t)=col{y(t),˙y(t)} and setting m=1, k=1, F=2, c=0.5, the above equation (4.1) can be written as
˙x(t)=[01−3−0.5]x(t)+[0020]x(t−ν(t)). | (4.1) |
By applying Theorems 1 and 2 in this work, the maximum allowable delay bounds with various μu(=−μl) are listed in Table 5. It can be confirmed that Theorem 2 is less conservatism than Theorem 1.
|
0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Theorem 1 | 1.7013 | 1.6941 | 1.6891 | 1.6850 |
Theorem 2 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 |
Novel delay-dependent stability criteria for systems with time-varying delays were introduced. To achieve less conservatism, the new augmented L-K functional including the function on the basis of AFBI was proposed to extend the feasible region of stability criteria. Through several numerical examples, it can be seen that the improvements in the proposed criteria for existing outcomes were shown. Based on the proposed idea, the authors will focus on extending the proposed idea to various applications such as stability analysis for the single switch positive system or the discrete-time single switch positive system, and so on [34,35,36].
This research was supported by Chungbuk National University Korea National University Development Project (2020).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] | S. I. Niculescu, Delay effects on stability: A robust approach, Springer-Verlag, London, 2001. |
[2] |
J. P. Richard, Time-delay systems: An overview of some recent advances and open problems, Automatica, 39 (2003), 1667-1694. doi: 10.1016/S0005-1098(03)00167-5
![]() |
[3] | X. Li, J. Shen, H. Akca, R. Rakkiyappand, LMI-based stability for singularly perturbed nonlinear impulsive differential systems with delays of small parameter, Appl. Math. Comput., 250 (2015), 798-804. |
[4] | X. Li, J. Shen, R. Rakkiyappan, Persistent impulsive effects on stability of functional differential equations with finite or infinite delay, Appl. Math. Comput., 329 (2018), 14-30. |
[5] |
D. Yang, X. Li, J. Shen, Z. Zhou, State-dependent switching control of delayed switched systems with stable and unstable modes, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 41 (2018), 6968-6983. doi: 10.1002/mma.5209
![]() |
[6] | X. Li, X. Yang, T. Huang, Persistence of delayed cooperative models: Impulsive control method, Appl. Math. Comput., 342 (2019), 130-146. |
[7] |
D. Yang, X. Li, J. Qiu, Output tracking control of delayed switched systems via state-dependent switching and dynamic output feedback, Nonlinear Anal-Hybri., 32 (2019), 294-305. doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2019.01.006
![]() |
[8] | K. Gu, An integral inequality in the stability problem of time-delay systems, Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.00CH37187), Sydney, 2000, 2805-2810. |
[9] |
P. G. Park, A delay-dependent stability criterion for systems with uncertain time-invariant delays, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 44 (1999), 876-877. doi: 10.1109/9.754838
![]() |
[10] |
E. Fridman, U. Shaked, An improved stabilization method for linear time-delay systems, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 47 (2002), 1931-1937. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2002.804462
![]() |
[11] |
S. Xu, J. Lam, Improved delay-dependent stability criteria for time-delay systems, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 50 (2005), 384-387. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2005.843873
![]() |
[12] |
S. Xu, J. Lam, A survey of linear matrix inequality techniques in stability analysis of delay systems, Int. J. Syst. Sci., 39 (2008), 1095-1113. doi: 10.1080/00207720802300370
![]() |
[13] |
M. J. Park, O. M. Kwon, J. H. Ryu, Generalized integral inequality: Application to time-delay systems, Appl. Math. Lett., 77 (2018), 6-12. doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2017.09.010
![]() |
[14] |
A. Seuret, F. Gouaisbaut, Wirtinger-based integral inequality: Application to time-delay systems, Automatica, 49 (2013), 2860-2866. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.05.030
![]() |
[15] |
P. G Park, W. I. Lee, S. Y. Lee, Auxiliary function-based integral inequalities for quadratic functions and their applications to time-delay systems, J. Frankl. Inst., 352 (2015), 1378-1396. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2015.01.004
![]() |
[16] |
P. Park, J. W. Ko, C. K. Jeong, Reciprocally convex approach to stability of systems with time-varying delays, Automatica, 47 (2011), 235-238. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.10.014
![]() |
[17] |
F. L. Liu, Further Improvement on delay-range-dependent stability criteria for delayed recurrent neural networks with interval time-varying delays, Int. J. Control Autom., 16 (2018), 1186-1193. doi: 10.1007/s12555-016-0359-1
![]() |
[18] |
C. Y. Dong, M. Y. Ma, Q. Wang, S. Q. Ma, Robust stability analysis of time-varying delay systems via an augmented states approach, Int. J. Control Autom., 16 (2018), 1541-1549. doi: 10.1007/s12555-017-0398-2
![]() |
[19] |
W. Duan, B. Du, Y. Li, C. Shen, X. Zhu, X. Li, et al. Improved sufficient LMI conditions for the robust stability of time-delayed neutral-type Lur'e systems, Int. J. Control Autom., 16 (2018), 2343-2353. doi: 10.1007/s12555-018-0138-2
![]() |
[20] |
T. H. Lee, J. H. Park, S. Xu, Relaxed conditions for stability of time-varying delay systems, Automatica, 75 (2017), 11-15. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.08.011
![]() |
[21] |
T. H. Lee, J. H. Park, A novel Lyapunov functional for stability of time-varying delay systems via matrix-refined function, Automatica, 80 (2017), 239-242. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2017.02.004
![]() |
[22] |
T. H. Lee, J. H. Park, Improved stability conditions of time-varying delay systems based on new Lyapunov functionals, J. Frankl. Inst., 355 (2018), 1176-1191. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2017.12.014
![]() |
[23] |
R. Zhang, D. Zeng, J. H. Park, S. Zhong, Y. Liu, X. Zhou, New approaches to stability analysis for time-varying delay systems, J. Frankl. Inst., 356 (2019), 4174-4189. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2019.02.029
![]() |
[24] |
M. J. Park, O. M. Kwon, J. H. Park, Advanced stability criteria for linear systems with time-varying delays, J. Frankl. Inst., 355 (2018), 520-543. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2017.11.029
![]() |
[25] | F. Long, C. K. Zhang, L. Jiang, Y. He, M. Wu, Stability analysis of systems with time-varying delay via improved Lyapunov-Krasovskii functionals, IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy. S., doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2914367. |
[26] |
X. Zhao, C. Lin, B. Chen, Q. Wang, Stability analysis for linear time-delay systems using new inequality based on the second-order derivative, J. Frankl. Inst., 356 (2019), 8770-8784. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2019.03.038
![]() |
[27] | Z. Li, H. Yan, H. Zhang, X. Zhan, C. Huang, Improved inequality-based functions approach for stability analysis of time delay system, Automatica, 108 (2019), 1-15. |
[28] | Fulvia S. S. de Oliveira, Fernando O. Souza, Further refinements in stability conditions for timevarying delay systems, Appl. Math. Comput., 369 (2020), 124866. |
[29] | A. Seuret, F. Gouaisbaut, Delay-dependent reciprocally convex combination lemma for the stability analysis of systems with a fast-varying delay, Delays and Interconnections: Methodology, Algorithms and Applications, Springer, 2019,187-197. |
[30] | M. C. de Oliveira, R. E. Skelton, Stability tests for constrained linear systems, Perspectives in robust control, Springer, Berlin, 2001,241-257. |
[31] |
X. Chang, J. H. Park, J. Zhou, Robust static output feedback H∞ control design for linear systems with polytopic uncertainties, Syst. Control Lett., 85 (2015), 23-32. doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2015.08.007
![]() |
[32] |
X. Chang, G. Yang, New results on output feedback H∞ control for linear discrete-time systems, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 59 (2014), 1355-1359. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2289706
![]() |
[33] |
K. Gu, S. I. Niculescu, Survey on recent results in the stability and control of time-delay systems, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 125 (2003), 158-165. doi: 10.1115/1.1569950
![]() |
[34] | S. Li, H. Lin, On l1 stability of switched positive singular systems with time-varying delay, Int. J. Robust Nonlin., 27 (2016), 2798-2812. |
[35] | S. Li, Z. Xiang, Positivity, exponential stability and disturbance attenuation performance for singular switched positive systems with time-varying distributed delays, Appl. Math. Comput., 372 (2020), 124981. |
[36] |
S. Li, Z. Xiang, J. Zhang, Dwell-time conditions for exponential stability and standard L1-gain performance of discrete-time singular switched positive systems with time-varying delays, Nonlinear Anal-Hybri., 38 (2020), 100939. doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2020.100939
![]() |
1. | Yonggwon Lee, Yeongjae Kim, Seunghoon Lee, Junmin Park, Ohmin Kwon, An improved reachable set estimation for time-delay linear systems with peak-bounded inputs and polytopic uncertainties via augmented zero equality approach, 2022, 8, 2473-6988, 5816, 10.3934/math.2023293 | |
2. | Muthusamy Vijayakumar, Rathinasamy Saklhivel, Dhafer Almakhles, Selvaraj Marshal Anthoni, Tracking Control Design for Markov Jump Systems With Time-varying Delay and External Disturbances, 2023, 21, 1598-6446, 2210, 10.1007/s12555-021-0884-4 |
Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | |
A | [−200−0.9] | [01−1−1] | [01−1−2] |
Ad | [−10−1−1] | [000−1] | [00−11] |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 4.8313 | 4.1428 | 3.1487 | 2.7135 |
[21] Th.1 | 4.8297 | 4.1398 | 3.1555 | 2.7307 |
[22] Th.3 | 4.8441 | 4.1419 | 3.1171 | 2.6983 |
[23] Th.3 | 4.8562 | 4.1764 | 3.1831 | 2.7391 |
[24] Th.3 | 4.9061 | 4.2011 | 3.1786 | 2.7155 |
[25] Th.2 | 4.940 | 4.262 | 3.304 | 2.862 |
[26] Th.1 | 4.9176 | 4.2043 | 3.2025 | 2.7980 |
[27] | 4.996 | 4.308 | 3.251 | 2.867 |
Theorem 1 | 4.9573 | 4.3000 | 3.3551 | 2.9280 |
Theorem 2 | 5.9906 | 5.6588 | 4.7612 | 4.1329 |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 7.1672 | 4.5179 | 2.4158 | 1.8384 |
[21] Th.1 | 7.1765 | 4.5438 | 2.4963 | 1.9225 |
[22] Th.3 | 7.1905 | 4.5275 | 2.4473 | 1.8562 |
[23] Th.3 | 7.2611 | 4.6380 | 2.5898 | 2.0060 |
[24] Th.3 | 7.5501 | 4.9021 | 2.7140 | 2.0546 |
[26] Th.1 | 7.4899 | - | 2.7539 | 2.1853 |
[27] | 7.297 | 4.625 | 2.624 | 2.038 |
Theorem 1 | 7.5775 | 4.9414 | 2.7640 | 2.1103 |
Theorem 2 | 173.8199 | 77.5481 | 21.0155 | 8.6559 |
|
0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Theorem 1 | 1.7013 | 1.6941 | 1.6891 | 1.6850 |
Theorem 2 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 |
Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | |
A | [−200−0.9] | [01−1−1] | [01−1−2] |
Ad | [−10−1−1] | [000−1] | [00−11] |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 4.8313 | 4.1428 | 3.1487 | 2.7135 |
[21] Th.1 | 4.8297 | 4.1398 | 3.1555 | 2.7307 |
[22] Th.3 | 4.8441 | 4.1419 | 3.1171 | 2.6983 |
[23] Th.3 | 4.8562 | 4.1764 | 3.1831 | 2.7391 |
[24] Th.3 | 4.9061 | 4.2011 | 3.1786 | 2.7155 |
[25] Th.2 | 4.940 | 4.262 | 3.304 | 2.862 |
[26] Th.1 | 4.9176 | 4.2043 | 3.2025 | 2.7980 |
[27] | 4.996 | 4.308 | 3.251 | 2.867 |
Theorem 1 | 4.9573 | 4.3000 | 3.3551 | 2.9280 |
Theorem 2 | 5.9906 | 5.6588 | 4.7612 | 4.1329 |
μu(=−μl) | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
[20] Th.1 | 2.5733 | 2.4202 | 2.0053 |
[21] Th.1 | 2.5733 | 2.4252 | 2.0199 |
[22] Th.3 | 2.5903 | 2.4382 | 2.0260 |
[24] Th.3 | 2.65 | 2.50 | 2.10 |
[26] Th.1 | 2.804 | 2.634 | 2.107 |
Theorem 1 | 2.6626 | 2.5205 | 2.1260 |
Theorem 2 | 3.1364 | 3.1361 | 3.1348 |
μu(=−μl) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
[20] Th.1 | 7.1672 | 4.5179 | 2.4158 | 1.8384 |
[21] Th.1 | 7.1765 | 4.5438 | 2.4963 | 1.9225 |
[22] Th.3 | 7.1905 | 4.5275 | 2.4473 | 1.8562 |
[23] Th.3 | 7.2611 | 4.6380 | 2.5898 | 2.0060 |
[24] Th.3 | 7.5501 | 4.9021 | 2.7140 | 2.0546 |
[26] Th.1 | 7.4899 | - | 2.7539 | 2.1853 |
[27] | 7.297 | 4.625 | 2.624 | 2.038 |
Theorem 1 | 7.5775 | 4.9414 | 2.7640 | 2.1103 |
Theorem 2 | 173.8199 | 77.5481 | 21.0155 | 8.6559 |
|
0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Theorem 1 | 1.7013 | 1.6941 | 1.6891 | 1.6850 |
Theorem 2 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 | 1.7093 |