Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
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
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
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
(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).
(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
1669
t t0 ;
(3)
y(t) = g(xt ; t; ut );
h 6 6 0;
x(t)
= x(t 1)[1 x2 (t)]
h 6 6 0;
x() = ();
t0 h 6 6 t0 ;
(4)
(5)
See Bellman and Cooke (1963, 1965, p. 45) and Kolmanovskii and
Myshkis (1992) or, for time-varying delay (Elsgolts & Norkin, 1973).
(7)
(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
(9)
with constant coeScients i R. Due to this simpli.cation, many authors investigated the particular case of
discrete-delay systems
k
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
(16)
y(t) = C( )x(t);
(17)
B(
) Rnm [
];
C(
) Rpn [
]:
(11)
(12)
Z
y(s)
Z = C(s)(sIn A(s))1 B(s)u(s);
(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)
(19)
(20)
(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];
0
[dK()](t + );
es dK();
s C;
Z =
F(s)
x(s)
Z =
0
l=1
(23)
l=1
1671
(25)
(26)
(41;j 42j )
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
?
(27)
(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)
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:
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)
1673
cannot be controlled
within 1 s.
1674
s C:
(33)
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.
1675
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)
k N
(36)
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)
(38)
m
(39)
i=1
i=1
m
i=1; j=1
thi
Li Aj x(s hj ) ds:
(40)
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
(44)
0 z(t)
= z(t) +
q
Dl z(t !l )
l=1
k
Ai x(t hi ) +
i=0
(42)
i=1
m
thij
i; j=1
1677
r
t'j
j=1
Gj () x() d
In
;
P=
P1
P2
P3
(45)
;
P1 = P1T :
(46)
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
1678
x(t)
= Ax(t) + Bu(t h);
x(t) Rn :
(48)
(49)
z(t) Rn :
(50)
(51)
t'
(52)
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
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 ;
h 6 6 0
(56)
h 6 6 0:
(57)
1680
0 6 t 6 T;
(58)
h 6 6 0:
1681
Table 3
Some references on control
Control
LTI
LTI+uncertnt.
Smith predict.
& generaliz.
Niculescu (2001)
Robust
stabiliz.
(param.)
H
Constrained
stab.
Observers
Disturb.
decoupl.
Block-decoupl.
Model match.,
Feedb. precomp.
Optimal
Self-adjusting
Deadbeat
Vibrational,
Averaging
Stochastic
TDC
FSA
SMC
LPV
Fractional
order
Passivity
Nonlin.
Palmor (1996)
Dugard and Verriest (1997)
and Kharitonov (1998)
Niculescu (2001)
Lehman (2002)
Contrl.
Liap. fct
Flatness
Feedback
Linearization
Lim. cycle,
Hopf
1682
n1
i=1
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.
n1
(62)
i=1
1683
1684
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)
(65)
(66)
1685
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:
(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)
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
p2 (t)u 2 (t h)
;
1 + p(t)u 2 (t h)
p(0) = p0 0:
(72)
n 0;
(73)
1687
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.
1689
1690
1691
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.
1693
1694