1586 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 47, NO.
9, SEPTEMBER 2002
Comments on “Robust Stabilization of a Class of
Time-Delay Nonlinear Systems”
Shaosheng Zhou, Gang Feng, and S. K. Nguang
Abstract—In this note, we show that the solution to the stabilization
problem of a class of time-delay nonlinear systems given in the above paper
is not correct in general.
Index Terms—Nonlinear systems, stabilization, time-delay.
Consider a class of time-delay systems of the form given in the above
paper1
x_ i (t) = Fi (!i (t)) + Hi (!i (t 0  )) + Gi (!i (t))xi+1
x_ n (t) = Fn (!n (t)) + Hn (!i (t 0  )) + Gi (!i (t))xi+1
i = 1; . . . ; n 0 1 (1)
where xi are the state variables, !i (t) = [x1 (t); . . . ; xi (t)] are the state
vectors, !i (t 0  ) = [x1 (t 0  ); . . . ; xi (t 0  )] are the delayed state
vector, and u 2 R is the control input of the system. For i = 1; . . . ; n,
the nonlinear functions Fi (:) Hi (:) and Gi (:) with Fi (0) = 0 and
Hi (0) = 0 are assumed to satisfy the following conditions:
C1) jFi (!i (t)j  i (!i (t)) where i (!i (t)) are known smooth
nonlinear functions with i (0) = 0;
C2) jHi (!i (t 0  )j  `i (!i (t 0  )) where `i (!i (t 0  )) are
known smooth nonlinear functions with `i (0) = 0;
C3) 0 < Gi (!i (t) 
i where
i are known positive constants.
It is claimed that the time-delay system under conditions C1)-C3)
is stabilized by a memory-less state feedback controller in the paper.1
A stabilizing controller is constructed by using backstepping-like ap-
proach in that paper.1 However, recently, we came to realize that one
would not be able to construct the stabilizing controller by using the
Manuscript received January 28, 2002. Recommended by Associate Editor
M. Reyhanoglu.
S. Zhou is with the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engi-
neering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong and
also with the Institute of Automation, Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165,
Shandong, China.
G. Feng is with the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engi-
neering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
(e-mail: megfeng@cityu.edu.hk).
S. K. Nguang is with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engi-
neering, University of Auckland, Auckland 1020, New Zealand.
Publisher Item Identifier 10.1109/TAC.2002.802754.
1S. K. Nguang, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 45 pp. 756–762, Apr. 2000
0018-9286/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
technique given in the aforementioned paper.1 . This will be demon-
strated by the following analysis and an illustrative example.
It can be seen from formulas (40), (41), (46), and (47) given in the
paper1 that the control u is related to the function sequences fk gkn= 0l ,
1
with k given by (40) and (41) in the paper. . Thus, the function se-
l
quence fk gkn= 0l must be determined before one is able to construct
l
the control u. However, this cannot be achieved by the technique given
in the above paper.1 In fact, it can be shown that fk gkn= 0l cannot be
l
constructively obtained. For example, we consider the function l . It
is clear from (15) and (16) given in the paper1 that the function 1 is
related to function sequence f`il gin=l with function sequences f`il gin=l
being in the transformed condition C2), which are not known before
the transformation is determined. The function sequence f`il gin=l is
related to the function sequence fhi (ri (t 0  ))gin=l . It is obvious that
fhi (ri (t 0  ))gin=l is related 0l due to the transformation T
to fk gkn=
1 l
given in (2) of the paper. Therefore, it can be seen that the function
l is constructed by some functions that are related to l itself and
01 in the later steps. This implies that
other unknown functions fk gkn=2
l cannot be explicitly obtained in general. This problem was caused
by the transformation T given by formula (2) and the choice of the
function Sl (Zl ( )) in formula (14) in the paper.1 There is a similar
problem for function sequence fk gkn=2 0l . Thus, it can be observed that
the control u cannot be constructively obtained. From the aforemen-
tioned analysis, we can see that the stabilizing problem formulated in
the paper1 is yet to be solved.
A. An Illustrative Example
Consider the following nonlinear time delay system:
x_ 1 (t) =x2 (t)
x_ 2 (t) =x22 (t 0  ) + u:
Clearly, Conditions C1)-C2) are met by the system. Using the transfor-
mation (2) given in the above paper,1 we have
z_1 (t) =z2 (t) + 1 (z1 (t))
z_2 (t) =z2 (t 0  )[z2 (t 0  ) + 21 (z1 (t 0  ))] + 22 (z1 (t 0  ))
0 @@z1 (z1 (t)) [z (t) +  (z (t))] + u:
2 1 1
1 (t)
It is easy to see that `21 is related to 1 (Z1 (t)). From (15) and (16)
in the paper,1 the function 1 (Z1 (t)) is constructed by a function that
is related to `21 . This implies that the function 1 (Z1 (t)) is constructed
by a function that is related to itself. Hence, 1 (Z1 (t)) cannot be ex-
plicitly obtained.