IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

1

Nonlinear Predictor Feedback for Input-Affine Systems
with Distributed Input Delays

arXiv:1601.00098v1 [math.OC] 1 Jan 2016

Anton Ponomarev
Abstract—Prediction-based transformation is applied to control-affine
systems with distributed input delays. Transformed system state is
calculated as a prediction of the system’s future response to the past
input with future input set to zero. Stabilization of the new system
leads to Lyapunov–Krasovskii proven stabilization of the original one.
Conditions on the original system are: smooth linearly bounded openloop vector field and smooth uniformly bounded input vectors. About
the transformed system which turns out to be affine in the undelayed
input but with input vectors dependent on the input history and system
state, we assume existence of a linearly bounded stabilizing feedback and
quadratically bounded control-Lyapunov function. If all assumptions hold
globally, then achieved exponential stability is global, otherwise local.
Analytical and numerical control design examples are provided.
Index Terms—Nonlinear systems, delayed control, NL predictive control, stability of NL systems.

I. N OTATION
The symbol P C(T, X) stands for the space of piecewise contin2
uous functions mapping T ⊂ R
 into a Euclidean space X. The L
m
norm of ϕ ∈ P C [−h, 0), R
is kϕk, i.e.,
Z 0
kϕk2 =
kϕ(θ)k2 dθ.
(1)
−h

m


Given u ∈ P C [t − h, t), R , where h > 0, let ut be a function
defined as ut (θ) = u(t + θ) for all θ ∈ [−h, 0).
O(R) is the closed R-ball about the origin in a normed space,
specifically,
x ∈ O(R) ⇔ kxk2 ≤ R2 ,
2

(2)
2

2

(x, ϕ) ∈ O(R) ⇔ kxk + kϕk ≤ R .

(3)

II. I NTRODUCTION
Consider the system



ẋ(t) = f x(t) + B0 x(t) u(t) + B1 x(t) u(t − h)
Z 0

+
Bint θ, x(t) u(t + θ) dθ,

(4)

−h

where x ∈ Rn , u ∈ Rm , h > 0, and the following assumptions hold
for some Mf < ∞ and R ∈ (0, ∞]:
1) regarding f , for all x, x0 ∈ O(R):
(5)

f (x) = f (x0 ) + A(x0 )(x − x0 ) + o(x − x0 ),

A ∈ C 0 O(R), Rn×n ;

(6)
(7)

2) regarding B1 , for all x, x0 ∈ O(R):

B1 is bounded on O(R),
(8)


1
m
B1 (x) = B1 (x0 ) + B1 (x0 )(x − x0 ), . . . , B1 (x0 )(x − x0 )
+ o(x − x0 ),

B1i ∈ C 0 O(R), Rn×n

(9)



∀i ∈ 1, m;

Bint is bounded on [−h, 0] × O(R),

Bint (·, x) ∈ P C [−h, 0], Rn×m ,

(11)
(12)

Bint (θ, x) = Bint (θ, x0 )


1
m
+ Bint
(θ, x0 )(x − x0 ), . . . , Bint
(θ, x0 )(x − x0 )
i
Bint
(θ, ·)

+ o(x − x0 ),

∈C

0

O(R), R

n×n 

(13)

∀i ∈ 1, m.

(14)

The linear bound (5) is assumed primarily to establish simple
bounds on the system’s solutions.
This paper is concerned with stabilization of the origin of (4),
however, the approach presented here is applicable to time-variant
systems with more point-wise and integral delays.
As for the practical importance of (4), such systems are used, e.g.,
for modeling of networked control systems where control delay value
is unknown and varies rapidly [1].
There may be quite a few ways to stabilize (4). See, e.g., [2] where
even more general time-variant systems with matrices B0 , B1 , and
Bint dependent on xt are tackled, the result being that sometimes a
nonlinear feedback of x(t) is stabilizing. However, we are concerned
here with the so-called predictor feedback. It got the name because, in
a sense, it predicts the system’s future behavior and how the control
currently being chosen affects this behavior. Formally speaking, it is
based on a state transformation which puts the system into a delayfree form. If the transformed system is stabilized with a feedback, it
is possible to prove that the feedback will also stabilize the original
system.
The predictor feedback theory is currently well-developed for
linear systems with distributed input delays [3], [4], [5] and nonlinear
single-delay systems [6]. This paper extends the methodology to
nonlinear systems with distributed input delays (4) for the first time.
B. Outline of the paper

A. Problem statement

kf (x)k ≤ Mf kxk,

3) regarding Bint , for all x, x0 ∈ O(R) and θ ∈ [−h, 0]:

(10)

Manuscript received January 15, 2015, revised June 6, 2015, accepted
October 22, 2015.
A. Ponomarev is with the Department of Control Theory, Saint Petersburg
State University, Russia (e-mail: anton.pon.math@gmail.com).

In Section III, already known predictor feedbacks are summarized.
In Section IV, nonlinear predictor-based state transformation is
defined for (4). The transformed system is derived in Theorem 1.
In Section V, an approach to stabilization of (4) is proposed (see
Theorem 2). It is based on assumed existence of a quadratically
bounded control-Lyapunov function and linearly bounded stabilizing
feedback for the predictor-transformed system. Stability of the original system’s closed loop is proved by Lyapunov–Krasovskii method.
In Section VI, some illustrative problems are discussed.
III. P REDICTOR FEEDBACK OVERVIEW
Let us recall a control methodology first designed for linear
systems in [3], [4], [5] and named there “finite spectrum assignment”,
“receding horizon approach”, and “model reduction”. We describe
here a certain rehash of the same method based on the “prediction”
concept and called “predictor feedback”.
A. Linear predictor feedback: one delay
To begin with, consider the linear system with one discrete delay:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + B1 u(t − h).
The principles of predictor feedback in this case are:

0000–0000/00$00.00 c 2015 IEEE

(15)

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

•

2

given the current state x(t) and past input ut , predictor
Y x(t), ut of the future state x(t + h) is calculated using the
variation of constants as
Z 0

Y x(t), ut = eAh x(t) +
e−Aθ B1 u(t + θ) dθ; (16)
−h

•

•

state transformation is applied to the system:

y(t) = Y x(t), ut ;

predictor-transformed system is delay-free:

ẏ(t) = Ay(t) + B1 u(t);
•
•

(17)

(18)

y(t) is stabilized, if possible, with a feedback u(t) = Ky(t);

the feedback for the original system is u(t) = KY x(t), ut .

B. Linear predictor feedback: distributed delay

Suppose now that distributed delays are present:
Z 0
ẋ(t) = Ax(t)+B0 u(t)+B1 u(t−h)+
Bint (θ)u(t+θ) dθ. (19)
−h

In this case literal prediction of x(t + h) at the current time t would
be challenging because it requires either knowledge of the future
input or assumptions about the future input. The former leads to a
non-causal and thus non-implementable feedback, the latter – to an
implicitly defined controller.
In [3], [4], [5], however, “prediction with zero future input” is used.
It is not the literal prediction, i.e., actual future input is not required
to be zero. The feedback is constructed as follows:

• predictor Y x(t), ut is defined as a prediction of x(t + h)
with past input ut and future input set to zero, i.e., assuming
u(t + θ) = 0 for all θ ∈ [0, h]; formally,

(20)
Y x(t), ut = ξ(h),
ξ ′ (s) = Aξ(s) + B1 u(t + s − h)
Z −s
+
Bint (θ)u(t + s + θ) dθ,

(21)

−h

ξ(0) = x(t)

(22)

or, equivalently,

Y x(t), ut = eAh x(t) +

Z

0

Q(θ)u(t + θ) dθ,

(23)

−h

•

•

•
•

Z

θ

−h

where σ > 0 (see [7] for proofs).
A lot of problems regarding linear predictor feedback have been
addressed since its discovery including stability [8], [9], [10], robustness [7], [11], [12], [13], delay-adaptive versions [14], [15], and
practical implementation issues [16], [17], [18], [19]. The approach
is available for systems with state delays and an input delay [20],
[21].
C. Nonlinear predictor feedback
Predictor feedback technique has been already expanded on nonlinear systems with one discrete delay in the input:

ẋ(t) = f x(t), u(t − h) .
(29)

The feedback was constructed and studied in [6] usingthe same idea
as in the linear case: construct a predictor Y x(t), ut of x(t + h);
introduce new variable y(t) = Y x(t), ut which transforms the
system to

ẏ(t) = f y(t), u(t)
(30)

and stabilize it with a feedback u = κ(y). An analysis is then
conducted which shows that stability
of the original system is

achieved by u(t) = κ Y x(t), ut .
As some examples of further development, let us mention the
delay-adaptive variation of the feedback [22] and feedback for statedependent delay [23].
IV. P REDICTOR - BASED STATE TRANSFORMATION

Following the linear theory
described in Subsection III-B, we

define predictor Y x(t), ut for (4) via prediction of x(t + h) under
zero future input. The nonlinear version of (25) is

(31)
y(t) = Y x(t), ut

n
with mapping Y (x, ϕ) defined for x ∈ R , ϕ ∈ P C [−h, 0], Rm
by the system
Y (x, ϕ) = ξ(h),

where

Q(θ) = e−Aθ B1 +

i.e., when x = x(t), ϕ = ut . It is convenient to construct the
functional starting with a Lyapunov function y T V y for the closedloop y-system. The functional may be then designed as
Z 0
v(x, ϕ) = Y T (x, ϕ)V Y (x, ϕ) +
eσθ kϕ(θ)k2 dθ,
(28)

′

eA(h−θ+τ ) Bint (τ ) dτ ;

(24)

−h

predictor-based state transformation is applied:

y(t) = Y x(t), ut ;

predictor-transformed system is again delay-free:

ẏ(t) = Ay(t) + eAh B0 + Q(0) u(t);

(33)

−h

ξ(0) = x.

(25)

(26)

y(t) is stabilized with u(t) = Ky(t);
the final feedback is


u(t) = KY x(t), ut .

(32)


ξ (s) = f ξ(s) + B1 ξ(s) ϕ(s − h)
Z −s

+
Bint θ, ξ(s) ϕ(s + θ) dθ,


(27)

Observe that the y-system (26) is clearly exponentially stable under
the feedback u = Ky if suitable K exists. Stability of (19) under (27)
is less obvious as the closed loop is a time-delay system. Lyapunov–
Krasovskii analysis is highly desirable. The central problem in this
analysis is to find a functional
v(x, ϕ) defined for all x ∈ Rn ,

ϕ ∈ P C [−h, 0), Rm which is positive definite in terms of the
norm kxk2 + kϕk2 and decreasing along the closed-loop solutions,

(34)

The definition is algorithmic: to find Y (x, ϕ), solve (33) with initial
condition (34) for s ∈ [0, h].
There may be problems with this definition if ξ(s) goes to infinity
between s = 0 and s = h. However, the following lemma shows that
the mapping is defined at least in a zero neighborhood.
Lemma 1: Y (x, ϕ) is defined globally if (5) is satisfied for R = ∞
or, otherwise, locally for
 
R
(x, ϕ) ∈ O
,
(35)
ρ
√

where ρ = 2eMf h max 1, h maxθ∈[−h,0],x∈O(R) kBint (θ, x)k +
maxx∈O(R) kB1 (x)k . Furthermore, for these x and ϕ

kxk2 ≤ ρ2 kY (x, ϕ)k2 + kϕk2 ,
(36)

kY (x, ϕ)k2 ≤ ρ2 kxk2 + kϕk2 .
(37)

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

3

Proof: Suppose that (5) holds true along the solution of the problem (33), (34). Applying the Gronwall–Bellman, Cauchy–Schwarz,
and Young inequalities, one deduces

kξ(s)k2 ≤ ρ2 kxk2 + kϕk2
(38)

for all s ∈ [0, h]. It leads to the conclusion that if (35) is satisfied,
then kξ(s)k ≤ R, so (5) does hold along ξ(s), and ξ(s) does not
go to infinity. Let s = h to get (37). To arrive at (36), use the same
estimations when s goes backwards from h to 0.
Let us ignore the possibility of predictor nonexistence for a while
(until Theorem 2) and derive the transformed system.
Theorem 1: System (4) after transformation (31) assumes the form


(39)
ẏ(t) = f y(t) + B y(t), ut u(t)
with B(y, ϕ) defined for every y and ϕ implicitly by the equations

(40)
B(y, ϕ) = B1 ξ(h) + β(h),


′
(41)
β (s) = Ã s, ξ(s), ϕ β(s) + Bint − s, ξ(s) ,

(42)
β(0) = B0 ξ(0) ,


ξ ′ (s) = f ξ(s) + B1 ξ(s) ϕ(s − h)
Z −s

+
(43)
Bint θ, ξ(s) ϕ(s + θ) dθ,

m
X


= A ξ(s) ζ(s) +
B1i ξ(s) ζ(s)ui (t + s − h)
i=1

+

m Z
X

−s

−h


i
Bint
θ, ξ(s) ζ(s)ui (t + s + θ) dθ

i=1

+ Bint − s, ξ(s) u(t)∆ + o(∆)


= Ã s, ξ(s), ut ζ(s) + Bint − s, ξ(s) u(t)∆ + o(∆). (51)

Equation (51) holds only if ξ(s) ∈ O(R). Observe that, up to o(∆),
the solution of the problem (51), (50) coincides with that of the
problem (41), (42) multiplied by u(t)∆:
ζ(h − ∆) = β(h)u(t)∆ + o(∆).

(52)

Therefore,
ξ̃(h) − ξ(h)
y(t + ∆) − y(t)
=
∆
∆
˜ − ∆) + ζ(h − ∆)
ξ̃(h) − ξ(h
=
∆


o(∆)
,
= f y(t) + B y(t), ut u(t) +
∆
which proves the theorem.

(53)

−h

ξ(h) = y,

(44)

Ã(s, ξ, ϕ) = A(ξ) +
+

m Z
X
i=1

m
X
i=1
−s

−h

B1i (ξ)ϕi (s − h)
i
Bint
(θ, ξ)ϕi (s + θ) dθ

(45)

granted that ξ(s) exists on the interval [0, h].
Proof: We are going to calculate the difference between y(t)
and y(t + ∆), where ∆ is a small number, and find ẏ(t) from there.
According to (31), y(t) = ξ(h), where ξ(s) satisfies


ξ ′ (s) = f ξ(s) + B1 ξ(s) u(t + s − h)
Z −s

+
(46)
Bint θ, ξ(s) u(t + s + θ) dθ,
−h

ξ(0) = x(t).

(47)

Notice that this function ξ is the same as in the statement of
the theorem, just defined from the other end of the interval [0, h].
˜
Likewise, y(t + ∆) = ξ(h),
where ξ̃(s) satisfies


′
˜
˜
ξ (s) = f ξ(s) + B1 ξ̃(s) u(t + ∆ + s − h)
Z −s

˜
+
u(t + ∆ + s + θ) dθ,
(48)
Bint θ, ξ(s)
−h

˜ = x(t + ∆).
ξ(0)

(49)

˜
Consider now ζ(s) = ξ(s)−ξ(s+∆)
for s ∈ [0, h−∆]. It follows
from the definition of ξ and ξ˜ that

(50)
ζ(0) = x(t + ∆) − ξ(∆) = B0 ξ(0) u(t)∆ + o(∆),
and

ζ ′ (s) = ξ˜′ (s) − ξ ′ (s + ∆)


˜
= f ξ(s)
− f ξ(s + ∆)



˜
− B1 ξ(s + ∆) u(t + ∆ + s − h)
+ B1 ξ(s)
Z −s

˜
+
u(t + ∆ + s + θ) dθ
Bint θ, ξ(s)
−h
Z −s−∆

−
Bint θ, ξ(s + ∆) u(t + ∆ + s + θ) dθ
−h

V. F EEDBACK DESIGN
The following result is inspired by the control-Lyapunov function
concept.
Theorem 2: If for all (y, ϕ) ∈ O(R) it is possible to define smooth
functions v0 (y) and w0 (y) and a mapping κ(y, ϕ) which satisfy the
inequalities
mv0 kyk2 ≤ v0 (y) ≤ Mv0 kyk2 ,
w0 (y) ≥ mw0 kyk2 ,

kκ(y, ϕ)k ≤ Mκ kyk,
T
f (y) + B(y, ϕ)κ(y, ϕ) ∇v0 (y) ≤ −w0 (y),

(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)

where mv0 > 0 and mw0 > 0, then:
1) the origin is exponentially stable in the loop of (4) closed by
the feedback

(58)
u(t) = κ Y (x, ut ), ut ;

2) the stability is global if R = ∞ or local if R < ∞ with the
region of attraction containing at least the ball
r


mv R
x(t), ut ∈ O
,
(59)
Mv ρ
where ρ is given by Lemma 1, and

1
mv = 2 min mv0 , γe−σh , ρ2 γe−σh ,
2ρ
Mv = γ + ρ2 Mv0 ,
mw0
γ=
,
2Mκ2
mw0
σ=
;
2Mv0

(60)
(61)
(62)
(63)

3) solutions of the closed loop (4), (58) exhibit the exponential
decay property

Mv −σt
e
kx(0)k2 + ku0 k2 .
(64)
kx(t)k2 + kut k2 ≤
mv

Proof: The proof is by the Lyapunov–Krasovskii method. Consider the functional for the closed loop (4), (58):
Z 0

v(x, ϕ) = v0 Y (x, ϕ) + γ
eσθ kϕ(θ)k2 dθ.
(65)
−h

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Using (36), (37), and (54), one can estimate


mv kxk2 + kϕk2 ≤ v(x, ϕ) ≤ Mv kxk2 + kϕk2

4

(66)

with mv and Mv given in the statement of the theorem.
Let (x(t), ut ) be an arbitrary solution of the closed loop and
suppose that (31) is defined along the whole trajectory (x(t), ut ).
Denote the value of v(x, ϕ) along this solution as v(t), i.e.,

(67)
v(t) = v x(t), ut .

It follows from the choice of γ and σ and from (55), (56), (57) that

 2
v̇(t) ≤ − mw0 + γMκ2 Y x(t), ut
Z 0
− σγ
eσθ ku(t + θ)k2 dθ
−h

≤ −σv(t).

(68)

Combining (66) and (68) leads to (64). Finally, (64) together with
(59) taken at t = 0 ensures
 that at no time t ≥ 0 does the system
leave the region x(t), ut ∈ O(R/ρ) which, according to Lemma 1,
is sufficient for (31) to be defined for all t ≥ 0. Thus, the proof just
given is correct inside (59).
The next statement is supplemental to Theorem 2. It presents a
way to construct the feeedback κ(y, ϕ), given v0 (y) and w0 (y). Its
application is demonstrated in Section VI-C.
Corollary 1: Define B ⊂ Rn×m as the set of all possible values
of B(y, ϕ) when (y, ϕ) ∈ O(R). Suppose B is bounded.
If there are smooth functions v0 (y) and w0 (y) meeting the
conditions (54), (55), and
k∇v0 (y)k ≤ M∇v0 kyk,

f T (y)∇v0 (y) − kkB T ∇v0 (y)k2 ≤ −w0 (y)

(69)
(70)

for some constants M∇v0 > 0, k, all B ∈ B, and all y ∈ O(R),
then the feedback
T

κ(y, ϕ) = −kB (y, ϕ)∇v0 (y)

(71)

satisfies (56) and (57). In other words, the implications of Theorem 2
hold true for these v0 , w0 , and κ.
Proof: (56) is satisfied with
Mκ = |k| max kBkM∇v0 .
B∈B

VI. E XAMPLES

A. Scalar case
The most trivial examples are equations of the form
Z 0

ẋ(t) = f x(t) + b0 u(t) + b1 u(t − h) +
bint (θ)u(t + θ) dθ (73)
−h

with same-sign input coefficients, e.g., b0 > 0, b1 > 0, and bint > 0.
In this case B(y, ϕ) is a positive scalar separated from zero, so a
possible feedback is (58) with
−f (y) − y
.
B(y, ϕ)

B. Explicit prediction
As explained in [6], for some nonlinear systems with one input
delay the predictor can be obtained by quadrature. The same holds
true for distributed input delays. Let us give an example.
The system

ẋ1 (t) = x22 (t) + u(t − h),
(75)
ẋ2 (t) = x2 (t) + u(t)
allows explicit predictor transformation
Z 0
e2h − 1 2
y1 = x 1 +
x2 +
u(t + θ) dθ,
2
−h
y2 = e h x 2

which results in the system
 

ẏ1 = y22 + 1 + eh − e−h y2 u,
ẏ2 = y2 + eh u.

(74)

(76)
(77)

(78)

The origin of (78) is globally asymptotically stabilizable. Indeed,
another state and input transformation
z1 = y1 − e−h y2 +

e−2h − 1 2
y2 ,
2

z2 = e−h y2 ,

(79)
(80)

u = −2z2 + ũ

(81)

puts (78) into the cascade form

ż1 = z22 − z2 ,
ż2 = −z2 + ũ.

(82)

Consider the positive definite function (the design is from [24])
2
(83)
V (z) = z1 + 12 z2 (z2 − 2) + z22 .
Its time-derivative along the solutions of (82)

(72)

(57) turns into (70) after substitution of (71).
Assuming infinitely fast computations, the control algorithm suggested by Corollary 1 is this:
1) At time t, given x(t) and ut , solve (46), (47) for ξ(s).
2) Assign y(t) := ξ(h).
3) Solve (41), (42) for β(h).
4) Assign B y(t), ut := B1 + β(h).


5) Apply u(t) = −kB T y(t), ut ∇v0 y(t) and repeat.

κ(y, ϕ) =

When input coefficients are of different signs, B(y, ϕ) may or may
not be zero. If it is zero for some y and ϕ, then the origin of (73)
may or may not be stabilizable. The exact case is unclear because,
unlike in the linear systems, here B(y, ϕ) is not constant.

V̇ = −2z22 +

∂V
ũ
∂z2

(84)

shows that the feedback
ũ = −

∂V
∂z2

(85)

is globally asymptotically stabilizing.
On a side note, the overall transformation from (75) to (82) happens
to be linear:
Z 0
z1 = x 1 − x 2 +
u(t + θ) dθ,
(86)
−h

z2 = x 2 ,

u = −2x2 + ũ.

(87)

(88)

Remark: Returning from z back through y to x leads to a rather
complex feedback for the original system (75). Does it achieve global
asymptotic stability (GAS)? On the one hand, transformation x 7→ y
is well defined globally and transformed system is closed-loop GAS.
On the other, assumption (5) and conditions (54)–(56) hold only
locally if anywhere. Therefore, we are bound to conclude that our
proofs do not warrant GAS of the original systems. This observation
is valid not only in this example. It represents an inherent limitation
of our proofs of stability. See Conclusions for further remarks.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

5

Step 2: find v0 , w0 and k that satisfy Corollary 1. Let
0

v0 (y) = y T V y

−1

with some positive definite V . The requirement of Corollary 1 is then

−2

2f T (y)V y − 4k(V y)T BB T V y ≤ −w0 (y).

1.5

f (y) = F (y)y,

1

−4

x1
π

F (y) =
π
4

−7
0
0

−8

α(y) =

2



0
α(y)


1
,
0

sin y1
∈ [−0.22, 1],
y1

(101)
(102)

then (99) will follow from negative definiteness of the matrix
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

V −1 F T (y) + F (y)V −1 − 4kBB T

t
1

(100)

where
0.5

−6

−9
0

(99)

It is convenient to decompose f (y) as

−3

u

−5

(98)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

t

Fig. 1: Simulation of (89) under the feedback (58), (104) with initial
conditions x1 (0) ∈ {π/2, π, 3π/2}, x2 (0) = π/2, u0 ≡ 1.
C. Numerical prediction
Consider the nonlinear inverted pendulum described by the system

ẋ1 (t) = x2 (t),
(89)
ẋ2 (t) = sin x1 (t) + u(t) + u(t − h), h = π/4.
The design presented below is also possible for all h ∈ [0, π/2].
In the above notation,


 
x2
0
.
(90)
f (x) =
, B0 = B1 =
1
sin x1
Assumptions (5) and (6) hold true with


0
1
, Mf = 1,
A(x) =
cos x1 0

R = ∞.

(91)

We are going to use Corollary 1 to design the feedback function
κ and then simulate the closed loop (89), (58).
Step 1: estimate B in order to apply Corollary 1. The problem (41),
(42) is

β ′ (s) = A ξ(s) β(s),
(92)
 
0
.
(93)
β(0) =
1
From the inclusions
 

d 2
β1 + β22 ∈ 0, 2 β12 + β22 ,
ds
 2 #
 2
  "
β1
β1
d β1
,1 +
∈ 1−
ds β2
β2
β2

(94)
(95)

valid for s ∈ [0, π/2) we find
h
i
β12 (h) + β22 (h) ∈ 1, e2h ,


β1 (h)
∈ tanh h, tan h ,
β2 (h)


(96)
(97)

which means that β(h) resides in a sector of a circular ring centered
at the origin. It implies a rough estimation of B as the sector moved
by B1 .

(103)

for all y ∈ Rn , all B ∈ B, and some k. We found computationally
that for h = π/4 it is valid to take V = I and k = 1, so the feedback
function suggested by Corollary 1 is
κ(y, ϕ) = −B T (y, ϕ)y.

(104)

Fig. 1 shows the simulation results of (89) under the feedback (58),
(104) for different initial conditions. Euler’s approximation with time
step of 0.01 was used for calculating x(t), β(s), and ξ(s).
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
Let us pose some problems for a future discussion.
Firstly, concerning practical implementation of the proposed feedback, it should be mentioned that solving nonlinear equations may be
costly, and any approximation, strictly speaking, requires robustness
analysis.
Secondly, it is demonstrated in Section VI-B that our linearquadratic bounds (5) and (54)–(56) may prohibit one from declaring global stabilization even when it is likely to be achieved. In
fact, such restrictive bounds are not necessary. Their purpose is to
simplify stability analysis by making the case “almost linear”. The
simplification is evinced in the exponential rate of decay (64) which
is generally not expected from nonlinear systems. A possible way to
avoid assumptions (5) and (54)–(56) and to achieve class KL rate of
decay in (64) is to follow the methodology of [6].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks Prof. M. Krstic for suggesting a number of
substantial improvements to the presentation.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Goebel, U. Münz, and F. Allgöwer, “Stabilization of linear systems
with distributed input delay,” in 2010 American Control Conference,
Marriott Waterfront, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2010, pp. 5800–5805.
[2] F. Mazenc, S.-I. Niculescu, and M. Bekaik, “Stabilization of timevarying nonlinear systems with distributed input delay by feedback of
plant’s state,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 264–269,
Jan. 2013.
[3] A. Manitius and A. W. Olbrot, “Finite spectrum assignment problem for
systems with delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-24, no. 4,
pp. 541–552, Aug. 1979.
[4] W. H. Kwon and A. E. Pearson, “Feedback stabilization of linear systems
with delayed control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-25, no. 2,
pp. 266–269, Apr. 1980.
[5] Z. Artstein, “Linear systems with delayed control: a reduction,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-27, no. 4, pp. 869–879, Aug. 1982.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

[6] M. Krstic, “Input delay compensation for forward complete and strictfeedforward nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 287–303, Feb. 2010.
[7] A. Ponomarev, “Reduction-based robustness analysis of linear predictor feedback for distributed input delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, to be published, doi:10.1109/TAC.2015.2437520, available online:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02402.
[8] M. Krstic, “Lyapunov tools for predictor feedbacks for delay systems:
inverse optimality and robustness to delay mismatch,” Automatica, vol. 4,
no. 11, pp. 2930–2935, Nov. 2008.
[9] N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic, “Lyapunov stability of linear predictor
feedback for distributed input delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 655–660, Mar. 2011.
[10] F. Mazenc, S.-I. Niculescu, and M. Krstic, “Lyapunov–Krasovskii functionals and application to input delay compensation for linear timeinvariant systems,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1317–1323, Jul. 2012.
[11] W. Michiels and S.-I. Niculescu, “On the delay sensitivity of Smith
Predictors,” Int. J. Syst. Sci., vol. 34, no. 8–9, pp. 543–551, Jul. 2003.
[12] M. Jankovic, “Forwarding, backstepping, and finite spectrum assignment
for time delay systems,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 2–9, Jan. 2009.
[13] I. Karafyllis and M. Krstic, “Delay-robustness of linear predictor feedback without restriction on delay rate,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 6, pp.
1761–1767, Jun. 2013.
[14] D. Bresch-Pietri and M. Krstic, “Delay-adaptive predictor feedback
for systems with unknown long actuator delay,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2106–2112, Sep. 2010.
[15] D. Bresch-Pietri, J. Chauvin, and N. Petit, “Adaptive control scheme for
uncertain time-delay systems,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1536–
1552, Aug. 2012.
[16] Z. Palmor, “Stability properties of Smith dead-time compensator controller,” Int. J. Control, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 937–949, 1980.
[17] S. Mondié, M. Dambrine, and O. Santos, “Approximation of control laws
with distributed delays: a necessary condition for stability,” Kybernetika,
vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 541–551, 2002.
[18] S. Mondié and W. Michiels, “A safe implementation for finite spectrum
assignment: robustness analysis,” in Proc. 42nd IEEE Conf. Decision
and Control, vol. 5, Dec. 2003, pp. 4569–4574.
[19] S. Evesque, A. M. Annaswamy, S. Niculescu, and A. P. Dowling,
“Adaptive control of a class of time-delay systems,” J. Dyn. Sys., Meas.,
Control, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 186–193, Jun. 2003.
[20] V. L. Kharitonov, “An extension of the prediction scheme to the case of
systems with both input and state delay,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 1, pp.
211–217, Jan. 2014.
[21] ——, “Predictor based stabilization of neutral type systems with input
delay,” Automatica, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 125–134, Feb. 2015.
[22] D. Bresch-Pietri and M. Krstic, “Delay-adaptive control for nonlinear
systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1203–1218,
May 2014.
[23] N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic, “Compensation of state-dependent
input delay for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58,
no. 2, pp. 275–289, Feb. 2013.
[24] M. Jankovic, R. Sepulchre, and P. V. Kokotovic, “Constructive Lyapunov
stabilization of nonlinear cascade systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1723–1735, Dec. 1996.

6

