Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Mathematical Problems in Engineering / 2009 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2009 |Article ID 841303 | 17 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/841303

Matrix Measures in the Qualitative Analysis of Parametric Uncertain Systems

Academic Editor: Tamas Kalmar-Nagy
Received07 Dec 2008
Revised08 Jun 2009
Accepted27 Jul 2009
Published05 Nov 2009

Abstract

The paper considers parametric uncertain systems of the form , where is either a convex hull, or a positive cone of matrices, generated by the set of vertices . Denote by the matrix measure corresponding to a vector norm . When is a convex hull, the condition , , is necessary and sufficient for the existence of common strong Lyapunov functions and exponentially contractive invariant sets with respect to the trajectories of the uncertain system. When is a positive cone, the condition , , is necessary and sufficient for the existence of common weak Lyapunov functions and constant invariant sets with respect to the trajectories of the uncertain system. Both Lyapunov functions and invariant sets are described in terms of the vector norm used for defining the matrix measure . Numerical examples illustrate the applicability of our results.

1. Introduction

First let us present the notations and nomenclature used in our paper.

For a square matrix , the matrix norm induced by a generic vector norm is defined by , and the corresponding matrix measure (also known as logarithmic norm) is given by ([1, page 41]). The spectrum of is denoted by and , , represent its eigenvalues. If is a symmetrical matrix, () means that matrix is negative (positive) definite. If , then represents the nonnegative matrix (for ) or vector (for ) defined by taking the absolute values of the entries of . If , then “”, “” mean componentwise inequalities.

Matrix measures were used in the qualitative analysis of various types of differential systems, as briefly pointed out below, besides their applications in numerical analysis. Monograph ([1, pages 58-59]) derived upper and lower bounds for the norms of the solution vector and proposed stability criteria for time-variant linear systems. Further properties of matrix measures were revealed in [2]. Paper [3] provided bounds for the computer solution and the accumulated truncation error corresponding to the backward Euler method. The work in [4] gave a characterization of vector norms as Lyapunov functions for time-invariant linear systems. The work in [5] developed sufficient conditions for the stability of neural networks. The work in [6] explored contractive invariant sets of time-invariant linear systems. The work in [7] formulated sufficient conditions for the stability of interval systems. The work in [8] presented a necessary and sufficient condition for componentwise stability of time-invariant linear systems.

A compact survey on the history of matrix measures and the modern developments originating from this notion can be found in [9].

The current paper considers parametric uncertain systems of the form

where is either a convex hull of matrices,

or a positive cone of matrices,

generated by the set of vertex matrices

In investigating the evolution of system (1.1) we assume that matrix is fixed, but arbitrarily taken from the matrix set defined by (1.2) or (1.3). Thus, the parameters of system (1.1) are not time-varying. Consequently, once is arbitrarily selected from , the trajectory initialized in , namely, , is defined for all

The literature of control engineering contains many papers that explore the stability robustness by considering systems of form (1.1), a great interest focusing on the case when the convex hull is an interval matrix [7, 1013].

For system (1.1) we define the following properties, in accordance with the definitions presented in [1416] for a dynamical system.

Definition 1.1. (a) The uncertain system (1.1) is called stable if the equilibrium is stable, that is, for any solution of (1.1) corresponding to an .
(b) The uncertain system (1.1) is called exponentially stable if the equilibrium is exponentially stable, that is, for any solution of (1.1) corresponding to an .

Remark 1.2. Using the connection between linear system stability and matrix eigenvalue location (e.g. [15]), we have the following characterizations.(a)The uncertain system (1.1) is stable if and only if In this case, the matrix set is said to be quasistable.(b)The uncertain system (1.1) is exponentially stable if and only if In this case, the matrix set is said to be Hurwitz stable.

Definition 1.3. Consider the function and its right Dini derivative, calculated along a solution of (1.1): (a) is called a common strong Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1), with the decreasing rate , if for any solution of (1.1) corresponding to an , we have (b) is called a common weak Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1), if for any solution of (1.1) corresponding to an , we have

Definition 1.4. The time-dependent set is called invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) if for any solution of (1.1) corresponding to an , we have meaning that any trajectory initiated inside the set will never leave .(a)A set of the form (1.12) with is said to be exponentially contractive.(b)A set of the form (1.12) with is said to be constant.

This paper proves that matrix-measure-based inequalities applied to the vertices , , provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the properties of the uncertain system (1.1) formulated by Definitions 1.3 and 1.4. The cases when the matrix set is defined by the convex hull (1.2) and by the positive cone (1.3) are separately addressed. When is a symmetric gauge function or an absolute vector norm and the vertices , , satisfy some supplementary hypotheses, a unique test matrix can be found such that a single inequality using implies or is equivalent to the group of inequalities written for all vertices. Some numerical examples illustrate the applicability of the proposed theoretical framework.

Our results are extremely useful for refining the dynamics analysis of many classes of engineering processes modeled by linear differential systems with parametric uncertainties. Relying on necessary and sufficient conditions formulated in terms of matrix measures, we get more detailed information about the system trajectories than offered by the standard investigation of equilibrium stability.

2. Main Results

2.1. Uncertain System Defined by a Convex Hull of Matrices

Theorem 2.1. Consider the uncertain system (1.1) with , the convex hull defined by (1.2), which, in the sequel, is referred to as the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2). Let be the matrix measure corresponding to the vector norm , and a constant. The following statements are equivalent.(i) The vertices of the convex hull fulfill the inequalities (ii) The function defined by (1.8) is a common strong Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2) with the decreasing rate .(iii) For any , the exponentially contractive set defined by (1.12) is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2).

Proof. We organize the proof in two parts. Part I proves the following results.(R1)Inequalities (2.1) are equivalent to (R2) Inequality (1.10) is equivalent to (R3)The matrix measure fulfills the equality Part II uses (R1), (R2), and (R3) to show that (i), (ii), and (iii) are equivalent.
Proof of Part I. (R1) If (2.2) is true, then (2.1) is true, since , for . Conversely, if (2.1) is true, then, from the convexity of the matrix measure, we get
() If inequality (2.3) is true, then, for any solution of (1.1) and (1.2) with initial condition set at as we have Conversely, let and . If inequality (1.10) holds for , consider the differential equation with the initial condition . Then, according to [14, Theorem 4.2.11], , for all
(R3) For and , we have , with . The triangle inequality leads to . By taking , we finally obtain the equality (2.4).
Proof of Part II. (i)(ii) For any solution to (1.1) and (1.2) corresponding to an , we get
()(i) For all . Hence, we have .
(ii)(iii) By contradiction, assume that there exists such that the exponentially contractive set is not invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2). Then there exists a trajectory of (1.1) and (1.2) for which condition (1.13) is violated, meaning that we can find , , so that and . This leads to , which contradicts (2.3). As a result, according to (R2), we contradict (ii).
(iii)(ii) For arbitrary , by taking in (1.13), we get (2.3) that is equivalent to (1.10), via (R2).

Remark 2.2. The equivalent conditions (i)–(iii) of Theorem 2.1 imply the exponential stability of the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2). Indeed, if the flow invariance condition (1.13) from Definition 1.4 is satisfied, then condition (1.5) from Definition 1.1, for exponential stability, is satisfied with . Conversely, if (1.5) is true for a certain , but not for , then condition (1.13) is not met. In other words the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2) may be exponentially stable without satisfying the equivalent conditions (i)–(iii) of Theorem 2.1.

Remark 2.3. Theorem 2.2 in [7] shows that condition (i) in Theorem 2.1 is sufficient for the Hurwitz stability of the convex hull of matrices defined by (1.2). According to Remark 2.2, the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2) is exponentially stable. The fact that condition (i) in Theorem 2.1 is necessary and sufficient for stronger properties of the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2) remained hidden for the investigations developed by [7].

Remark 2.4. Theorem 2.1 offers a high degree of generality for the qualitative analysis of uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2). Thus, from Theorem 2.1 particularized to the vector norm , , (where is a nonsingular matrix) and the corresponding matrix measure , we get the following well-known characterization of the quadratic stability of uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2), (e.g., [16, page 213]). Indeed, according to ([1, page 41]) inequality (2.1) in Theorem 2.1 means , which is equivalent to the condition , with , for all . In other words, Theorem 2.1 provides a comprehensive scenario that naturally accommodates results already available in particular forms for uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2).

2.2. Uncertain System Defined by a Positive Cone of Matrices

Theorem 2.5. Consider the uncertain system (1.1) with , the positive cone defined by (1.3), which, in the sequel, is referred to as the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3). Let be the matrix measure corresponding to the vector norm . The following statements are equivalent.(i)The vertices of the positive cone fulfill the inequalities (ii) The function defined by (1.8) is a common weak Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3).(iii) For any , the constant set defined by (1.12) is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3).

Proof. It is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1 where we take .

Remark 2.6. The equivalent conditions (i)–(iii) of Theorem 2.5 imply the stability of the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3). Indeed, if the flow invariance condition (1.13) from Definition 1.4 is satisfied, then condition (1.4) for stability from Definition 1.1 is satisfied with Conversely, if (1.4) is true for a certain but not for then condition (1.13) is not met. In other words the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3) may be stable without satisfying the equivalent conditions (i)–(iii) of Theorem 2.5.

Remark 2.7. Theorem 2.3 in [7] claims that for (i.e., condition (i) in Theorem 2.5 with strict inequalities) is sufficient for the Hurwitz stability of the positive cone of matrices (1.3). However this is not true. Inequalities , , imply , which, together with , for example, [1], yield . Thus, condition (1.7) for the Hurwitz stability of the positive cone of matrices defined by (1.3) may be not satisfied. Although the hypothesis of [7, Theorem  2.3] is stronger than condition (i) in our Theorem 2.5, this hypothesis can guarantee only the stability (but not the exponential stability) of the uncertain system (1.1) and (1.3). Moreover, as already mentioned in Remark 2.3 for the matrix set defined by (1.2), [7] does not discuss the necessity parts of the results.

3. Usage of a Single Test Matrix for Checking Condition (i) of Theorems 2.1 and 2.5

Condition (i) of both Theorems 2.1 and 2.5 represents inequalities of the form

which involve all the vertices of the matrix sets defined by (1.2) or (1.3), respectively. We are going to show that, in some particular cases, one can find a single test matrix such that the satisfaction of inequality

guarantees the fulfillment of (3.1).

Given a real matrix , let us define its comparison matrix by

Proposition 3.1. (a) If the following hypotheses (H1), (H2) are satisfied, then inequality (3.2) is a sufficient condition for inequalities (3.1).(H1)The vector norm is a symmetric gauge function ([17, page 438]) (i.e., it is an absolute vector norm that is a permutation invariant function of the entries of its argument) and is the corresponding matrix measure.(H2)Matrix satisfies the componentwise inequalities for some permutation matrices , .(b) If the above hypotheses (H1), (H2) are satisfied and there exists such that , then inequality (3.2) is a necessary and sufficient condition for inequalities (3.1).

Proof. (a) We organize the proof in two parts. Part I proves the following results.(R1) If is a permutation matrix, then (R2)Given , if the componentwise inequality is fulfilled for a permutation matrix then Part II uses (R2) to show that (3.2) implies (3.1).
Proof of Part I. (R1) From the definition of the matrix norm, there exists , , such that . Since the considered vector norm is permutation invariant, we have for a permutation matrix . This leads to . Let us prove that the strict inequality does not hold. Assume, by contradiction, that . Then, there exists , , such that . Hence, with satisfies that contradicts the definition of . Consequently, .
Similarly we prove that , yielding . Thus, we get and, consequently, = . By taking we obtain equality (3.5).
(R2) First, we exploit the componentwise matrix inequality (3.6). For small , we get that leads to the following componentwise vector inequality , with .
Since is a symmetric gauge function, it is also an absolute vector norm, and, equivalently, a monotonic vector norm [17, Theorem  5.5.10]. Consequently, that implies Thus, we get and . By taking we obtain the inequality .
Similarly, the componentwise matrix inequality leads to . Finally, we have .
Proof of Part II. From (3.4), according to (R2) we get , , which together with (3.2) lead to (3.1).
(b) The sufficiency is proved by (a). The necessity is ensured by the equality and the inequality (resulting from ).

Proposition 3.2. (a) If the following hypotheses (H1), (H2) are satisfied, then inequality (3.2) is a sufficient condition for inequalities (3.1).(H1)The vector norm is an absolute vector norm and denotes the corresponding matrix measure.(H2)Matrix satisfies the componentwise inequalities (b) If the above hypotheses (H1), (H2) are satisfied and there exists such that , then inequality (3.2) is a necessary and sufficient condition for inequalities (3.1).

Proof. (a) We use the same technique as in the proof of Proposition 3.1 to show that, for a given satisfying the componentwise inequality , the monotonicity of implies .
(b) The proof of necessity is identical to Theorem 2.1.

Remark 3.3. Proposition 3.2 allows one to show that the characterization of the componentwise exponential asymptotic stability (abbreviated CWEAS) of interval systems given by our previous work [12] represents a particular case of Theorem 2.1 applied for an absolute vector norm.
Indeed, assume that parametric uncertain system (1.1) and (1.2) is an interval system; that is, the convex hull of matrices has the particular form . This system is said to be CWEAS if there exist , , and such that , : , , where , denote the components of the initial condition and of the corresponding solution , respectively. According to [12] the interval system is CWEAS if and only if , where and the matrix is built from the entries of the matrices and by , and , , . On the other hand, Theorem 2.1 characterizes CWEAS if applied for the vector norm , with . At the same time, we can use Proposition 3.2(b), since (3.8) is satisfied with , is an absolute vector norm, and there exist belonging to the set of vertices of such that , , , , , which implies . Thus is a necessary and sufficient condition for the CWEAS of the interval system. Finally we notice that is equivalent to , , showing that the CWEAS characterization derived in [12] for interval systems is incorporated into the current approach to parametric uncertain systems.

Remark 3.4. Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 can be stated in a more general form, by using, instead of a single test matrix , several test matrices , with being significantly smaller than . Each , will have to satisfy inequality (3.4) in Proposition 3.1 or inequality (3.8) in Proposition 3.2, for some vertex matrices in , such that .

4. Illustrative Examples

This section illustrates the applicability of our results to three examples. Examples 4.1 and 4.2 refer to case studies presented by literature of control engineering, in [18, 19], respectively. Example 4.3 aims to develop a relevant intuitive support for invariant sets with respect to the dynamics of a mechanical system with two uncertain parameters.

Example 4.1. Let us consider the set of matrices [18]: Paper [18] shows that matrices , and have the following common quadratic Lyapunov function: since , .
We define the convex hull of matrices having the set of vertices (4.1), that is,
and the positive cone of matrices having the set of vertices (4.1), that is, In we define the vector norm where , in accordance with Remark 2.4, and consider the corresponding matrix measure . For the vertex-matrices in (4.1) simple computations give , , and .(i)Theorem 2.1 applied to the qualitative analysis of uncertain system (1.1) and (4.3) reveals the following properties.(a)The function is a common strong Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.3) with the decreasing rate . (b)Any exponentially contractive set of the form is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.3).(ii)Theorem 2.5 applied to the qualitative analysis of uncertain system (1.1) and (4.4) reveals the following properties.(a)The function defined by (4.5) is a common weak Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.4).(b)Any constant set of the form is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.4).

Example 4.2. Let us consider the interval matrix [19]: Obviously, the set can be regarded as a convex hull with vertices The comparison matrices , , of the vertices of (4.10) are built in accordance with (3.3) yielding , (since all are essentially nonnegative matrices). The dominant vertex satisfies inequalities (3.8), meaning that also satisfies inequalities (3.4) with all the permutation matrices equal to the unity matrix, . Therefore we can apply both Propositions 3.1 and 3.2.
First, we apply Proposition 3.1 for the usual Hölder norms , with , which are symmetric gauge functions. We calculate the matrix measures for and obtain the values , , . Consequently all the vertex matrices in (4.10) satisfy the inequalities
Thus, for the qualitative analysis of uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9) we can employ Theorem 2.1 that reveals the following properties.(a)The function is a common strong Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9) with the decreasing rate , .(b)Any exponentially contractive set of the form is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9).Next, we show that Proposition 3.2 allows refining the properties discussed above of the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9). The refinement will consist in finding common strong Lyapunov functions and exponentially contractive sets with faster decreasing rates than presented above for .
The dominant vertex is an essentially positive matrix (all off-diagonal entries are positive) and we can use the Perron Theorem, in accordance with [20]. Denote by the Perron eigenvalue. From the left and right Perron eigenvectors of we can construct the diagonal matrices , and , , such that, for the vector norms defined in by we have , . These vector norms are absolute without being permutation invariant; hence they are not symmetric gauge functions. Nonetheless, for these norms we may apply Proposition 3.2 with proving that the vertex matrices in (4.10) satisfy the inequalities
Thus, for the qualitative analysis of uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9) we can employ Theorem 2.1 that reveals the following properties.(a)The function is a common strong Lyapunov function for the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9) with the decreasing rate .(b)Any exponentially contractive set of the form
is invariant with respect to the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9).
Note that all the conclusions regarding the qualitative analysis of the uncertain system (1.1) and (4.9) remain valid in the case when we consider the modified interval matrix which has the same dominant vertex as the original interval matrix (4.9).

Example 4.3. Let us consider the translation of the mechanical system in Figure 1. A coupling device CD (with negligible mass) connects, in parallel, the following components: a cart (with mass ) in series with a damper (with viscous friction coefficient ) and a spring (with spring constant ) in series with a damper (with viscous friction coefficient ).
The system dynamics in form (1.1) is described by where the state variables are the spring force and the cart velocity . We consider when the spring is elongated and when it is compressed as well as when the cart moves to the left and when it moves to the right.
The viscous friction coefficients have unique values, namely,  Ns/mm,  Ns/mm, whereas the cart mass and the spring constant have uncertain values belonging to the intervals , . Therefore we introduce the notation that allows describing the set of system matrices as the convex hull of form (1.2) defined by the vertices

For the initial conditions , , we analyze the free response of the system. We want to see if there exists such that

The problem can be approached in terms of Theorem 2.1, by considering in the vector norm , with , and the exponentially contractive set

Obviously, condition (4.20) is equivalent with the invariance of the set (4.21) with respect to the uncertain system (4.18). By calculating the matrix measures for the vertices , , in (4.19), we show that condition (2.1) in Theorem 2.1 is satisfied for . Hence, the set (4.21) is invariant with respect to the uncertain system, and condition (4.20) is fulfilled regardless of the concrete values of , , 1.5 kg 2 kg, .
The graphical plots in Figures 2 and 3 present the simulation results for a system belonging to the considered family, that corresponds to the concrete values , . We take four distinct initial conditions given by the combinations of , at . Figure 2 exhibits the evolution of and , as 2D plots (function values versus time). The dotted lines mark the bounds , as used in condition (4.20), with . Figure 3 offers a 3D representation of the exponentially contractive set defined by (4.21), with , as well as a state-space portrait, presenting the same four trajectories as in Figure 2.
As a general remark, it is worth mentioning that the problem considered above is far from triviality. If, instead of condition (4.20), we use the more general form then Theorem 2.1 shows that (4.22) can be satisfied if and only if ; if this condition is fulfilled, then (4.22) is satisfied for
The request has a simple motivation even from the operation of the system. Assume that and , . Immediately after , the elongation of the spring will increase (since the damper with moves slower than the damper with ). Thus, at the first moments after , we will have and condition (4.22) is violated.

5. Conclusions

Many engineering processes can be modeled by linear differential systems with uncertain parameters. Our paper considers two important classes of such models, namely, those defined by convex hulls of matrices and by positive cones of matrices. We provide new results for the qualitative analysis which are able to characterize, by necessary and sufficient conditions, the existence of common Lyapunov functions and of invariant sets. These conditions are formulated in terms of matrix measures that are evaluated for the vertices of the convex hull or positive cone describing the system uncertainties. Although matrix measures are stronger instruments than the eigenvalue location, their usage as necessary and sufficient conditions is explained by the fact that set invariance is a stronger property than stability. We also discuss some particular cases when the matrix-measure-based test can be applied to a single matrix, instead of all vertices. The usage of the theoretical concepts and results is illustrated by three examples that outline both computational and physical aspects.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for the support of CNMP Grant 12100/1.10.2008 - SICONA.

References

  1. W. A. Coppel, Stability and Asymptotic Behavior of Differential Equations, D. C. Heath and Company, Boston, Mass, USA, 1965. View at: Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  2. T. Ström, “Minimization of norms and logarithmic norms by diagonal similarities,” Computing, vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 1–7, 1972. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  3. C. Desoer and H. Haneda, “The measure of a matrix as a tool to analyze computer algorithms for circuit analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits Theory, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 480–486, 1972. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  4. H. Kiendl, J. Adamy, and P. Stelzner, “Vector norms as Lyapunov functions for linear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 839–842, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  5. Y. Fang and T. G. Kincaid, “Stability analysis of dynamical neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 996–1006, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  6. L. Gruyitch, J.-P. Richard, P. Borne, and J.-C. Gentina, Stability Domains, vol. 1 of Nonlinear Systems in Aviation, Aerospace, Aeronautics, and Astronautics, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2004. View at: MathSciNet
  7. Z. Zahreddine, “Matrix measure and application to stability of matrices and interval dynamical systems,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, no. 2, pp. 75–85, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  8. O. Pastravanu and M. Voicu, “On the componentwise stability of linear systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  9. G. Söderlind, “The logarithmic norm. History and modern theory,” BIT Numerical Mathematics, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 631–652, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  10. J. Chen, “Sufficient conditions on stability of interval matrices: connections and new results,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 541–544, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  11. M. E. Sezer and D. D. Šiljak, “On stability of interval matrices,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 368–371, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  12. O. Pastravanu and M. Voicu, “Necessary and sufficient conditions for componentwise stability of interval matrix systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1016–1021, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  13. T. Alamo, R. Tempo, D. R. Ramírez, and E. F. Camacho, “A new vertex result for robustness problems with interval matrix uncertainty,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 474–481, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  14. A. Michel, K. Wang, and B. Hu, Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems. The Role of Stability Preserving Mappings, vol. 239 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2001. View at: MathSciNet
  15. X. Liao, L. Q. Wang, and P. Yu, Stability of Dynamical Systems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007.
  16. F. Blanchini and S. Miani, Set-Theoretic Methods in Control, Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications, Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass, USA, 2008. View at: MathSciNet
  17. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. View at: MathSciNet
  18. Y. Mori, T. Mori, and Y. Kuroe, “On a class of linear constant systems which have a common quadratic Lyapunov function,” in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, vol. 3, pp. 2808–2809, Tampa, Fla, USA, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  19. L. Kolev and S. Petrakieva, “Assessing the stability of linear time-invariant continuous interval dynamic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 393–397, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  20. M. H. Matcovschi and O. Pastravanu, “Perron-Frobenius theorem and invariant sets in linear systems dynamics,” in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED '07), Athens, Greece, 2007. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2009 Octavian Pastravanu and Mihaela-Hanako Matcovschi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

562 Views | 310 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles