Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Systems & Control Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sysconle

Stabilization of distributed control systems with delay

Hernán R. Henríquez a,∗ , Claudio Cuevas b , Marcos Rabelo b , Alejandro Caicedo b
a
Departamento de Matemática, Universidad de Santiago, USACH, Casilla 307, Correo 2, Santiago, Chile
b
Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Luiz Freire S/N, Recife-PE, CEP 50540-740, Brazil

article info abstract

Article history: In this paper the asymptotic stabilization of linear distributed parameter control systems with delay is
Received 15 July 2010 considered. Specifically, we are concerned with the class of control systems described by the equation
Received in revised form x′ (t ) = Ax(t ) + L(xt ) + Bu(t ), where A is the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup
22 December 2010
on a Banach space X . Assuming appropriate conditions, we will show that the usual spectral controllability
Accepted 19 April 2011
Available online 2 July 2011
assumption implies the feedback stabilization of the system. Applications to systems described by partial
differential equations with delay are given.
Keywords:
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Stabilization of systems
Hereditary distributed control systems
Controllability
Quasi-compact semigroups
Compact operators

1. Introduction it was proved in [8] that if

rank[∆(λ), B] = n, Re(λ) ≥ 0, (1.1)
This paper is concerned with the stabilization problem for then there exists a bounded linear map K : C ([−r , 0]; Rn ) → Rm
hereditary control systems. The problem of stabilizing a linear such that the system
invariant control system by a dynamic output feedback has a very ∫ 0
extensive literature. At present the theory for control systems of x′ (t ) = dθ N (θ )x(t + θ ) + BK (xt )
finite dimension is well established and we refer to O’Reilly [1] −r
and Wonham [2] for the most important part of the theory. is asymptotically stable (we refer to [9,10] for the spectral proper-
Similarly, the problem of feedback stabilization of control systems ties of retarded functional differential equations). Consequently, if
with delays has been studied in many works employing different the spectral controllability property (1.1) holds there exists a linear
approaches. It is well known that the existence of delay can feedback control law that stabilizes the system.
modify the asymptotic behavior of a system making it stable or, Nevertheless, this class of systems does not include those
conversely, making it lose stability [3–7]. systems modeled by partial integro-differential equations which
In particular, the stabilization of the system arise in the study of a number of problems such as heat conduction
in materials with memory or population dynamics for spatially
∫ 0
distributed populations [11]. As a model we take the linear system
x′ ( t ) = dθ N (θ )x(t + θ ) + Bu(t ),
−r ∂2 ∂
w(ξ , t ) + β w(ξ , t )
where N (·) is an n × n matrix valued map of bounded variation on ∂t2 ∂t
[−r , 0], was considered by Pandolfi in [8]. Specifically, defining the ∂2
∫ 0
characteristic matrix = 2 w(ξ , t ) + dθ N (θ )w(ξ , t + θ )
∂ξ −r
∫ 0
m
∆(λ) = λI − eλθ dθ N (θ ),
−
−r
+ bi (ξ )ui (t ), 0 ≤ ξ ≤ π , t ≥ 0,
i=1

w(0, t ) = w(π , t ) = 0
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 7182027; fax: +56 2 6813125.
where r > 0, the scalar function N (·) has bounded variation on
E-mail addresses: hernan.henriquez@usach.cl (H.R. Henríquez), [−r , 0] and bi , i = 1, . . . , m are appropriate functions. Usually
cch@dmat.ufpe.br (C. Cuevas), rabelo@dmat.ufpe.br (M. Rabelo), this type of linear equations arise from linearization of semilinear
alejocro@dmat.ufpe.br (A. Caicedo). ones [12].
0167-6911/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sysconle.2011.04.012
676 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682
For this reason in [13] we have studied the stabilization problem
for a class of linear invariant systems that can be modeled by an
abstract retarded functional differential equation with delay r > 0
and states in a Banach space X . In order to specify the class of
systems to be considered we introduce some notations.
Throughout this work we denote by L(X ) the Banach algebra of
bounded linear operators defined on X and by X ∗ the dual space of
X . For a linear operator A with domain D(A) and range R(A) in X ,
we represent by σ (A) (resp. σp (A), ρ(A)) the spectrum (resp. the
point spectrum, the resolvent set) of A. For λ ∈ ρ(A), we denote by
R(λ, A) = (λI − A)−1 the resolvent operator of A. If D(A) is dense
in X , then A′ denotes the dual operator of A [14].
For the necessary concepts related with the abstract Cauchy
problem and the theory of strongly continuous semigroup of op-
erators we refer to Engel and Nagel [15] and Pazy [16]. We only
mention here a few concepts and results directly related with our
developments. Let G(t ) be a strongly continuous semigroup de-
fined on a Banach space X with infinitesimal generator D. We say
that G is strongly stable if G(t )x → 0, t → ∞, for all x ∈ X , and we
say that G is uniformly exponentially stable if ‖G(t )‖ → 0, t → ∞
(see [15, Proposition I.3.12] for several equivalent conditions for
this concept). Moreover, we employ the terminology and notations
for spectral bound s(D), growth bound ω0 (G) and essential growth
bound ωess (G) from [15]. Specifically, s(D) = sup{Re(λ) : λ ∈
σ (D)}; ω0 (G) = limt →∞ ln ‖Gt (t )‖ and ωess (G) = limt →∞ ln ‖G(tt )‖ess ,
where the symbol ‖·‖ess denotes the essential norm of an operator.
Consequently, in terms of these notations, G is uniformly exponen-
tially stable if, and only if, ω0 (G) < 0.
For completeness we also regard here that a strongly continu-
ous semigroup G(t ) is said to be compact if G(t ) is a compact op-
erator for all t > 0 and that G is said to be quasi-compact if there
is t0 > 0 and a compact operator R such that ‖G(t0 ) − R‖ < 1.
We collect in the following lemma a pair of essential results
([15, Corollary IV.2.11, Proposition V.3.5]) for our development.
Lemma 1.1. The following conditions are fulfilled.
(i) The semigroup G is quasi-compact if and only if ωess (G) < 0.
(ii) ω0 (G) = max{ωess (G), s(D)}.
Henceforth, we represent by A the infinitesimal generator of a
strongly continuous semigroup of bounded linear operatorsT (t ) on
X , and C stands for the space of continuous functions C ([−r , 0], X )
provided with the norm of uniform convergence.
In [13] we have studied the stabilization problem for control
systems described by the abstract retarded functional differential
equation (abbreviated, ARFDE)
x (t ) = Ax(t ) + L(xt ) + Bu(t ),
′
where u(t ) ∈ Rm represents the input at time t, and L : C → X
and B : Rm → X are bounded linear maps. In this equation, the
function xt : C → X , called the segment of x(·) at t, is given by
xt (θ) = x(t + θ ) for −r ≤ θ ≤ 0. We assume further that
∫ 0
L(ϕ) = dθ N (θ )ϕ(θ ),
−r
where the map N : [−r , 0] → L(X ) has bounded variation.
Superficially speaking (see the details in Section 3), we say that
the system (1.2) is stabilizable if there exists a feedback control
u(t ) = F (xt ), where F is a bounded linear map, such that the
solutions of (1.2) converge exponentially to zero as t → ∞.
For λ ∈ C, let Lλ : X → X and ∆(λ) : D(A) → X be the
linear operators defined by
Lλ x = L(eλθ x), x ∈ X,
∆(λ)x = λx − Ax − Lλ x, x ∈ D(A).
  [∆(λ), B] : D(A) × R → X the operator
m
We denote by the block
given by [∆(λ), B]
x
= ∆(λ)x + Bu. Hence, R[∆(λ), B] =
u
{∆(λ)x + Bu : x ∈ D(A), u ∈ Rm } is the range of the operator
[∆(λ), B].
Let Λ = {λ ∈ C : Re(λ) ≥ 0}. Specifically, we have estab-
lished [13, Theorem 3.1] the following result.
Lemma 1.2. Assume that T is a compact semigroup. The system
(1.2) is stabilizable if and only if R[∆(λ), B] = X for all λ ∈ Λ.
The objective of this paper is to show that this characterization
also holds for some systems of type (1.2) even if the semigroup T (·)
is not compact.
This paper is organized as follows. In the Section 2 we have
collected some technical results about spectral properties of
ARFDE, most of which are included in [15,17,12], in the Section 3
we apply these properties to stabilize control systems described
by an ARFDE, and in the last Section 4 we have included a pair of
applications of our results to the stabilization of systems described
by partial differential equations with delay.
2. Preliminaries
Throughout the rest of this paper A : D(A) → X is the infinites-
imal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup of bounded lin-
ear operators T (t ) on X and L : C → X is a bounded linear map
defined by (1.3). We refer to Engel and Nagel [15], Travis and
Webb [17] and Wu [12] for the basic properties of the ARFDE
x′ (t ) = Ax(t ) + L(xt ) + f (t ), t ≥ 0. (2.1)
We only mention here that the Eq. (2.1) with the initial condition
x0 = ϕ ∈ C (2.2)
has a unique mild solution x = x(·, ϕ, f ). This means that x :
[−r , ∞) → X is a continuous function that verifies (2.2) and the
restriction of x(·) on [0, ∞) satisfies the integral equation
∫ t
x(t ) = T (t )ϕ(0) + T (t − s)(L(xs ) + f (s))ds, t ≥ 0. (2.3)
0
In particular, if x(·, ϕ) denotes the mild solution of the homoge-
neous problem
x′ (t ) = Ax(t ) + L(xt ), t ≥0 (2.4)
x0 = ϕ ∈ C , (2.5)
the solution operator V (t ) defined by V (t )ϕ = xt (·, ϕ) is a
strongly continuous semigroup of bounded linear operators on C
(1.2)
(see [12]). We will represent by AV its infinitesimal generator.
Definition 2.1. The system (2.4) is said to be (asymptotically)
stable if the semigroup V (t ) is uniformly exponentially stable.
Consequently, it follows from the Lemma 1.1 that the study of
the asymptotic stability of the system (2.4) is reduced to the study
(1.3) of spectral properties of the solution semigroup V (t ).
We denote by W (t ) the solution operator corresponding to L =
0. It is clear that W (t ) is given by

T (t + θ )ϕ(0), −t ≤ θ ≤ 0,
[W (t )ϕ](θ ) =
ϕ(t + θ ), −r ≤ θ < −t .
We are in a position to establish the first result about asymp-
totic behavior of the solution semigroup.
Theorem 2.1. Assume that the semigroup T (t ) is uniformly exponen-
(1.4) tially stable and that the operator T (t )L : C → X is compact for all
(1.5) t > 0. Then the semigroup V (t ) is quasi-compact.
 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682
Proof. We define the operator U (t ) : C → C for t ≥ 0 by
∫ t +θ
T (t + θ − s)L(V (s)ϕ)ds, −t ≤ θ ≤ 0,

[U (t )ϕ](θ ) = 0 finite algebraic multiplicity [15, Theorem V.3.7]. Therefore, the
0, −r ≤ θ < −t .

It is clear from (2.3) with f = 0 that
V (t ) = W (t ) + U (t ), t ≥ 0,
which implies that U (t ) is a bounded linear operator. Moreover,
from [18, Theorem 1] and taking into account that T (t )L is com-
pact for t > 0, we can assert that U (t ) is a compact operator. On
the other hand, there exist constants M ≥ 1 and α > 0 such that
‖T (t )‖ ≤ Me−αt for all t ≥ 0. Hence, for t ≥ r we have that
‖W (t )ϕ‖ = sup ‖T (t + θ)ϕ(0)‖ ≤ M sup e −α(t +θ)
‖ϕ(0)‖
−r ≤θ≤0 −r ≤θ≤0
α r −α t
≤ Me e ‖ϕ‖
which implies that W (t ) is uniformly exponentially stable. There-
fore, ‖V (t0 ) − U (t0 )‖ < 1 for t0 large enough. 
There are many interesting situations in which the semigroup
T (t ) is not compact but the operator T (t )L : C → X is compact for
t > 0. Next we mention a pair of general cases:
(i) The operator L : C → X is compact. For instance, L(ϕ) =
i=1 Ai ϕ(−ri ), where Ai : X → X , i = 1, . . . , k, are com-
∑k
0
pact linear operators, or L(ϕ) = −r N (θ)ϕ(θ)dθ , where N :
[−r , 0] → L(C ) is a uniformly continuous map such that N (θ )
is a compact operator for each −r ≤ θ ≤ 0.
(ii) A more general situation is the following. Assume that there
exists a topological decomposition of X = X0 ⊕ X1 , where Xi
are invariant spaces under T (t ), and X1 has finite dimension.
Let P0 be the projection on X0 with kernel X1 . If T (t )P0 L is com-
pact, then the product T (t )L is also compact.
Combining the Theorem 2.1 with the Theorem V.3.7 in [15] we
can establish the following property of asymptotic behavior for
the solution semigroup associated to the homogeneous problems
(2.4)–(2.5).
Corollary 2.1. Assume that the semigroup T (t ) is uniformly exponen-
tially stable and that the operator T (t )L : C → X is compact for all
t > 0. Then the semigroup V (t ) is uniformly exponentially stable if
and only if sup Reσp (AV ) < 0.
It follows from Corollary 2.1 that to study the asymptotic
behavior of V (t ) we need to describe σp (AV ). It is known
([12, Theorem 3.1.5]) that the operator AV is defined by
AV ϕ = ϕ ′
(2.6)
on the domain
D(AV )
= {ϕ ∈ C 1 ([−r , 0], X ) : ϕ(0) ∈ D(A), ϕ ′ (0) = Aϕ(0) + L(ϕ)}.
Lemma 2.1. Let λ ∈ C. Then λ ∈ σp (AV ) if and only if there is
u ∈ D(A), u ̸= 0, such that ∆(λ)u = 0. In this case the function
ϕ = eλθ u is the eigenvector of AV corresponding to λ. Moreover, if
λ ∈ σ (A + Lλ ), then λ ∈ σ (AV ).
Proof. The first assertion is an immediate consequence of (2.6),
and the calculations are included in the proof of [12, Theo-
rem 3.1.7]. For the second assertion see [15, Proposition VI.6.7]. 
677
Remark 2.1. Assume that the semigroup V (t ) is quasi-compact.
In this case the set Λ = {λ ∈ σ (AV ) : Re(λ) ≥ 0} is finite
and consists of poles of the operator-valued function R(·, AV ) with
space C is decomposed as
C = PΛ ⊕ QΛ , (2.7)
where PΛ and QΛ are invariant spaces under V (t ) and the
space PΛ is the range of the spectral projection Π P corresponding
to Λ. Consequently, PΛ consists of the generalized eigenvectors
corresponding to the eigenvalues λi ∈ Λ. Specifically, if Λ =
{λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm }, then
m
PΛ =

ker(λi I − AV )ki (2.8)
i=1
for certain ki ∈ N. We denote by V P (t ), (respectively, V Q (t )) the
restriction of V (t ) on PΛ (respectively, on QΛ ). Similarly, APV and
Q
AV represent the restrictions of AV on PΛ and QΛ , respectively.
Since PΛ is a space of finite dimension d, the semigroup V P (t ) is
uniformly continuous and APV is a bounded linear operator defined
on PΛ . Let ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 , . . . , ϕ d be a basis of PΛ . We set Φ = (ϕ 1 ,
ϕ 2 , . . . , ϕ d ). Consequently, proceeding as usual in the theory of
functional differential equations [10], there is a d × d matrix G
such that Φ (θ ) = Φ (0)eGθ , for −r ≤ θ ≤ 0, V P (t )Φ = Φ eGt ,
for t ≥ 0, and σp (G) = Λ. Let Ψ be the dual basis of Φ associated
to the decomposition (2.7), as constructed in [19]. We can write
Ψ = col(ψ1 , . . . , ψd ), where ψi ∈ C ∗ and ⟨ψi , ϕj ⟩ = δi,j for
i, j = 1, . . . , d. Moreover, Π P ϕ = Φ col(⟨ψ1 , ϕ⟩, . . . , ⟨ψd , ϕ⟩),
and ϕ ∈ QΛ if and only if ⟨ψi , ϕ⟩ = 0 for all i = 1, . . . , d. In
these conditions, it has been established in [19, Proposition 4.2]
that there exists x∗ = col(x∗1 , x∗2 , . . . , x∗d ) ∈ X ∗d such that the
projection xPt = Π P xt on PΛ of the solution of (2.1)–(2.5) is given
by xPt = Φ z (t ), where the d-vector z (t ) satisfies the ordinary
differential equation
z ′ (t ) = Gz (t ) + ⟨x∗ , f (t )⟩. (2.9)
We next establish a pair of properties of the vector x∗ .
Lemma 2.2. The components x∗i ∈ D(A′ ), i = 1, . . . , d. Further-
more, if v ∈ (Rd )∗ is a left eigenvector of G corresponding to λ ∈ Λ,
then (λI − A′ − L′λ )v x∗ = 0.
Proof. To prove the first assertion we choose y ∈ D(A) and we
take the constant function f (t ) = −Ay − L(y), where y denotes the
constant function y(θ ) = y for all −r ≤ θ ≤ 0. The Eq. (2.1) is
x′ (t ) = A(x(t ) − y) + L(xt − y).
Let x(·) be the solution of this equation with initial condition x0 =
y. Since the function w(t ) = x(t ) − y satisfies the equation
w ′ (t ) = Aw(t ) + L(wt ), w0 = 0,
then wt = xt − y = V (t )(0) = 0 for t ≥ 0. On the other hand,
xPt = Φ z (t ) where z (t ) = ⟨Ψ , y⟩ is a constant vector. Applying
(2.9) we obtain that
z ′ (t ) = Gz (t ) + ⟨x∗ , −Ay − L(y)⟩ = 0.
Hence
⟨x∗ , Ay⟩ = G⟨Ψ , y⟩ − L(y)
is a continuous function of y. This shows the assertion.
To establish the second assertion we proceed in a similar way. In
this case we define f (t ) = eλt (λy − Ay − Lλ y). Let x(t ) = eλt y, t ≥
−r. It is clear that xt = eλt ψ , where ψ(θ ) = eλθ y. Therefore,
L(xt ) = eλt L(ψ) = eλt Lλ (y).
678
Using the above expression, we can verify directly that x(·) is the
solution of the Eq. (2.1) with initial condition x0 = eλθ y. Defining
xPt = Φ z (t ), we conclude that
z (t ) = ⟨Ψ , xt ⟩ = ⟨Ψ , eλt eλθ y⟩ = eλt ⟨Ψ , ψ⟩.
On the other hand, using again (2.9) and the variation of constants
formula, we can write
∫ t
z (t ) = eGt z (0) + eG(t −s) ⟨x∗ , f (s)⟩ds,
0
which implies that
∫ t
v z (t ) = eλt v z (0) + eλ(t −s) v⟨x∗ , f (s)⟩ds
0
∫ t
= eλt v z (0) + eλ(t −s) ⟨v x∗ , f (s)⟩ds
0
∫ t
= eλt v z (0) + eλ(t −s) ⟨v x∗ , eλs (λy − Ay − Lλ y)⟩ds
0
λt
= e [v z (0) + t ⟨v x , λy − Ay − Lλ y⟩].∗
Since the equality (2.10) shows that e−λt z (t ) is bounded on t ≥ 0,
the above equality implies that ⟨v x∗ , λy − Ay − Lλ y⟩ = 0. In view
of that y was chosen arbitrarily in D(A) and D(A) is dense in X , this
completes the proof. 
Lemma 2.3. Let λ ∈ Λ and v ∈ (Rd )∗ such that λv = v G and
v x∗ = 0. Then v = 0.
Proof. Let ϕ ∈ PΛ , ϕ ̸= 0, be an eigenvector of AV corresponding
to µ ∈ Λ. From the Lemma 2.1 we obtain that ϕ(θ ) = eµθ ϕ(0)
for −r ≤ θ ≤ 0. For certain γ ∈ C we take ϕ 1 (θ ) = e(γ +µ)θ ϕ(0).
We set x(t ) = e(γ +µ)t ϕ(0), for t ≥ −r. Clearly xt = e(γ +µ)t ϕ 1 for
t ≥ 0. This implies that x(·) is a solution of the Eq. (2.1) for
f (t ) = e(γ +µ)t [(γ + µ)ϕ(0) − Aϕ(0) − L(ϕ 1 )].
Let z (·) be given by z (t ) = ⟨Ψ , xt ⟩. From (2.9) we get that
v z ′ (t ) = v Gz (t ) + v⟨x∗ , f (t )⟩ = λv z (t ),
which implies that v z (t ) = eλt c for t ≥ 0. On the other hand, we
have that
v z (t ) = v⟨Ψ , xt ⟩ = v⟨Ψ , e(γ +µ)t ϕ 1 ⟩ = e(γ +µ)t v⟨Ψ , ϕ 1 ⟩ = eλt c ,
for t ≥ 0. If µ ̸= λ we can take γ = 0 to conclude that v⟨Ψ , ϕ 1 ⟩
= v⟨Ψ , ϕ⟩ = 0. In case that µ = λ, we can take γ > 0 to conclude
that v⟨Ψ , ϕ 1 ⟩ = v⟨Ψ , eγ θ ϕ⟩ = 0. Taking the limit as γ → 0+ we
also get that v⟨Ψ , ϕ⟩ = 0.
On the other hand, using the representation of PΛ given in (2.8)
and arguing as above, we can infer that v⟨Ψ , ϕ⟩ = 0 for all ϕ ∈ PΛ .
Since ⟨Ψ , Φ ⟩ = I we finally obtain that v = 0. For the sake of
brevity we omit the details. 
3. Stabilization results
In this section we turn our attention to the problem of stabiliz-
ing the system (1.2) where u(t ) ∈ Rm denotes the input variable
and B : Rm → X is a linear map, and both A as L satisfy the general
conditions considered in Section 2. We begin by establishing our
concept of stabilization.
Definition 3.1. The system (1.2) is said to be stabilizable if there
exists a bounded linear map F : C → Rm such that the system
x′ (t ) = Ax(t ) + (L + BF )(xt )
is stable.
H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682
Next we denote by  V (t ) the solution semigroup associated to
(3.1), with infinitesimal generator AV .
Initially we establish some necessary conditions in order the
system (1.2) to be stabilizable.
(2.10)
Proposition 3.1. If the operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0, and the
system (1.2) is stabilizable, then the semigroup V (t ) is quasi-compact.
Proof. Proceeding as in the proof of the Theorem 2.1 we can write
V (t ) = W (t ) + U (t ),
V (t ) = W (t ) + 
 U (t ),
where the operator  U (t ) is given by
U (t )ϕ](θ )
[
∫ t +θ
T (t + θ − s)(L + BF )(
V (s)ϕ)ds, −t ≤ θ ≤ 0,

= 0
0, −r ≤ θ < −t .

Since B is a compact linear operator, the same argument mentioned
in the proof of the Theorem 2.1 to obtain that U (t ) is compact al-
lows us to affirm that U (t ) is compact. Therefore,
V (t ) = U (t ) + 
V (t ) − 
U (t ). (3.2)
Since U (t ) − 
U (t ) is compact and the semigroup  V (t ) is uni-
formly exponentially stable, we can affirm that the semigroup V (t )
is quasi-compact. 
We assume now that the semigroup T is uniformly stable
exponentially and that the operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0.
In this case, by Theorem 2.1 the semigroup V is quasi-compact,
and we can apply the properties and notations introduced in the
Remark 2.1 in relation with the homogeneous equation (2.4). In
particular, we set Λ = {λ ∈ σp (AV ) ∑ : Re(λ) ≥ 0}. Furthermore,
if u = col(u1 , . . . , um ), then Bu = j=1 uj bj , for some bj ∈ X .
m
We introduce the notation x B for the d × m matrix whose (i, j)
∗
coefficient is ⟨x∗i , bj ⟩, i = 1, . . . , d, j = 1, . . . , m.
Proposition 3.2. Assume that the semigroup T is uniformly exponen-
tially stable and that the operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0. Let
λ ∈ Λ be such that R[∆(λ), B] = X . Then rank[λI − G, x∗ B] = d.
Proof. To establish our assertion we will show that the nullity of
the transpose of the block matrix [λI − G, x∗ B] is zero. Let v ∈ (Rd )∗
be a vector such that v G = λv and v x∗ B = 0. It follows from
Lemma 2.2 that ∆′ (λ)v x∗ = 0. Consequently, v x∗ ∈ R[∆(λ), B]⊥
which in turn implies that v x∗ = 0. Applying now the Lemma 2.3
we infer that v = 0. 
Now we are in a position to establish the main result of this
work.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that the semigroup T is uniformly exponen-
tially stable and that the operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0. Then
the system (1.2) is stabilizable if and only if R[∆(λ), B] = X for all
λ ∈ Λ.
Proof. Let x(·) be the mild solution of (1.2) with initial condition
x0 = ϕ . Applying the Remark 2.1 we can write xPt = Φ z (t ), t ≥ 0,
where z (t ) satisfies the equation
z ′ (t ) = Gz (t ) + x∗ Bu(t ), (3.3)
d
which is a control system with states in R .
We assume first that R[∆(λ), B] = X for λ ∈ Λ. From the
Proposition 3.2 we obtain that rank[λI − G, x∗ B] = d for all λ ∈ Λ.
Since σp (G) = Λ the Hautus criteria [20] implies that the system
(3.1)
(3.3) is stabilizable. Consequently, there exists an m × d matrix H
such that σ (G + x∗ BH ) = {γ1 , . . . , γl } is included in C− \ σ (AV ).
 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682 679

We define F (ϕ) = H ⟨Ψ , ϕ⟩ for ϕ ∈ C . Since the argument Corollary 3.2. Assume that the following conditions hold:
used to establish [13, Theorem 3.1] only depends on the properties
established in the Remark 2.1, and the Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, we only (a) The semigroup T0 (t ) is uniformly stable.
include here the main ideas of the proof. For ϕ ∈ QΛ we have that (b) The system (3.4) is approximately controllable in finite time.
F (ϕ) = 0. This implies that 
V (t )ϕ = V (t )ϕ , which in turn implies (c) The operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0.
that the subspace QΛ is invariant under  V (t ). Using this property, (d) R[∆(λ), B] = X for all λ ∈ C, Re(λ) ≥ 0.
we can show that Then the system (1.2) is stabilizable.
σp (
AV ) ⊆ {λ ∈ σp (AV ) : Re(λ) < 0} ∪ σ (G + x∗ BH ) ⊆ C− . Similarly, combining the Corollary 3.1 with [22, Theorem 3.35]
Since the semigroup V (t ) is quasi-compact, using (3.2) we obtain or with [23, Theorem 2.4] we get the following consequence.
V (t ) is also quasi-compact. Applying now Corollary 2.1 and
that 
the previous spectral inclusion we infer that the semigroup  V (t ) Corollary 3.3. Assume that X is a Hilbert space. Assume in further
is uniformly exponentially stable, which in turn implies that the that the following conditions are fulfilled:
system (3.1) is stable.
(a) The system (3.4) is exactly null controllable on [0, t1 ] with controls
Conversely, if (1.2) is stabilizable, there is a bounded linear map
u ∈ L2 ([0, t1 ], Rm ) for t1 > 0.
F : C → Rm for which the solution semigroup  V (t ) of (3.1) is
(b) The operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0.
uniformly exponentially stable. Therefore, for any λ ∈ C with
(c) R[∆(λ), B] = X for all λ ∈ C, Re(λ) ≥ 0.
Re(λ) ≥ 0 we have that λ ̸∈ σ ( AV ). If Fλ x = F eλθ x, it follows
from Lemma 2.1 that λ ̸∈ σ (A + Lλ + BFλ ), which clearly implies Then the system (1.2) is stabilizable.
that R[∆(λ), B] = X . 
The condition that the semigroup T is uniformly exponentially 4. Applications
stable is somewhat demanding. However, there are many impor-
tant non-delayed distributed control systems modeled by In this section we apply our results to study the stabilization of
two classes of control systems with delay.
x (t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu(t )
′
(3.4)
We initially consider systems governed by partial differential
which are stabilizable. We refer to [21] for a discussion about this equations of first order. This type of equations describe interesting
subject. phenomena such as transport models [24] or population models
with age distribution [25]. Here we consider a simplified control
Corollary 3.1. Assume that the system (3.4) is stabilizable, the
system with delay described by the equation
operator T (t )L is compact for t > 0, and R[∆(λ), B] = X for all
λ ∈ C, Re(λ) ≥ 0. Then the system (1.2) is stabilizable. ∂w(t , ξ ) ∂w(t , ξ ) ∞
∫
+ + αw(t , ξ ) + g (ξ , η)w(t − r , η)dη
Proof. It follows from our hypotheses that there exists a linear ∂t ∂ξ −∞
operator K : X → Rm such that the semigroup  T (t ) generated m
−
A = A + BK is uniformly stable. The system (1.2) can be written
by  = bi (ξ )ui (t ), ξ ∈ R, t ≥ 0, (4.1)
x′ (t ) = (A + BK )x(t ) + 
L(xt ) + Bu(t ) i=1

= Ax(t ) + 
L(xt ) + Bu(t ), (3.5)
w(θ , ξ ) = ϕ(θ , ξ ), ξ ∈ R, − r ≤ θ ≤ 0, (4.2)
where α, r > 0 and g , bi , ϕ are functions that satisfy appropriate
where the operator L : C → X is given by
conditions that will be specified later. It is known [26, Exam-
L(ϕ) = L(ϕ) − BK ϕ(0).
 ple 4.6.1] that the initial value problem
Moreover, ∂w(t , ξ ) ∂w(t , ξ )
+ + αw(t , ξ ) = 0, ξ ∈ R, t ≥ 0, (4.3)
T (t )
 L(ϕ) = 
T (t )L(ϕ) − 
T (t )BK ϕ(0). (3.6) ∂t ∂ξ
Since B is a compact operator, we can assert that the operator w(0, ξ ) = f (ξ ), ξ ∈ R, (4.4)
defined by the second term on the right hand side of (3.6) defines can be modeled as an abstract Cauchy problem in the space X =
a compact operator. Similarly, it is well known [16] that L2 (R). For this reason, in what follows we will assume that f , bi ∈ X
t for i = 1, . . . , m and that ϕ ∈ C ([−r , 0], X ), where as usual we
∫
T (t )x = T (t )x +
 T (t − s)BKT (s)xds
 have identified ϕ(θ )(ξ ) = ϕ(θ , ξ ). Let A be the operator
0
dz (ξ )
and arguing as in the proof of the Theorem 2.1, we get that  T (t )L is Az (ξ ) = − − α z (ξ )
a compact operator. Consequently,  T (t )
L is a compact operator. dξ
Finally, since on the domain D(A) = H 1 (R). The operator A is the infinitesimal
R[λI −  Lλ , B] = R[λI − A − Lλ , B] = X
A − generator of a strongly continuous group T (t ) on X given by

we can affirm that the system (3.5) satisfies the hypotheses T (t )z (ξ ) = e−α t z (ξ − t ), t , ξ ∈ R.
of the Theorem 3.1. From this we obtain the system (3.5) is
Consequently, the problems (4.3)–(4.4) is reduced to the abstract
stabilizable. 
Cauchy problem
Combining this result with the stabilizability criteria estab-
lished in [22,21], we can present some results for the stabilizability x′ (t ) = Ax(t ),
of system (1.2) in terms of the controllability of the system (3.4). x(0) = f .
In the next result we assume that there is a topological
Furthermore, the semigroup T (t ), t ≥ 0, is uniformly exponen-
decomposition X = X0 ⊕ X1 , where Xi are invariant subspaces
tially stable, and the operator T (t ) is not compact because T (t ) has
under A, and X1 is a finite dimensional space. Let Ti (t ) be the
bounded inverse T (−t ).
restriction of the semigroup T (t ) on Xi for i = 0, 1. Combining 2
the Corollary 3.1 with [22, Corollary 3.33] we obtain the following  ∞We  ∞will assume2 further that g : R → R is continuous and
result. −∞ −∞ |g (ξ , η)| dηdξ < ∞.
680 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682

Lemma 4.1. Under the above conditions, the linear operator N: X → stabilize the system through a boundary control with a point delay.
X given by In [30] study the stabilization of a wave equation with point delay
∫ ∞
and establish conditions to stabilize it using a control defined in a
Nz (ξ ) = g (ξ , η)z (η)dη part of the boundary. In what follows, in order to present a general
−∞ result, we consider an abstract version of the wave equation with
distributed delay and controlled with a finite dimensional control.
is compact.
This abstract version includes the classical wave equation and sev-
Proof. For each n ∈ N, we define Nn : X → X by eral equations describing the displacement of a beam under differ-
∫ n
ent loading and boundary conditions [34].
Nn z (ξ ) = g (ξ , η)z (η)dη, −n ≤ ξ ≤ n , Let H be a real Hilbert space. Following to [22, Example 2.16] or
−n [34, Example 2.25] we consider the abstract wave equation
and Nn z (ξ ) = 0 for |ξ | > n. It follows from [27, Proposition 9.5.2] x′′ (t ) + β x′ (t ) + Ax(t ) = 0, (4.5)
that Nn is a compact operator. Next we prove that Nn → N as
n → ∞ for the norm of operators. In fact, for z ∈ X we have x(0) = x , 0
x (0) = x ,
′ 1
(4.6)
∫ ∞ where x(t ) ∈ H , β ∈ R and A is a positive self-adjoint operator
‖Nz − Nn z ‖2 = |Nz (ξ ) − Nn z (ξ )|2 dξ with domain D(A) such that
−∞
∫ −n
∫ ∞ 2 ⟨Ax, x⟩ ≥ k‖x‖2 , ∀x ∈ D(A),
(ξ , η) (η) η  dξ for some constant k > 0.
 
=  g z d
Introducing the Hilbert space H = D(A1/2 ) × H with inner
 
−∞ −∞
∫ n  ∫ −n ∫ ∞ 2
product
g (ξ , η)z (η)dη + g (ξ , η)z (η)dη dξ
 
+  [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
x x
= ⟨A1/2 x1 , A1/2 x2 ⟩ + ⟨y1 , y2 ⟩,

1 ,
−n −∞ n
2
∫ ∞ ∫ ∞ 2 y y
g (ξ , η)z (η)dη dξ
 
+ 
n

−∞
we can write (4.5) as the first order system
−n ∞ w ′ (t ) = Aw(t ),
∫ ∫
≤ |g (ξ , η)|2 dηdξ ‖z ‖2
x(t )
   
0 I
−∞ −∞ where w(t ) = x′ (t )
∈ H and A = −A −β I is defined
∫ n ∫ −n
1/2
+2 |g (ξ , η)|2 dηdξ ‖z ‖2 on D(A) = D(A) × D(A ). Then A and A generate strongly
′

−n −∞ 0 I
continuous semigroups ([34, Theorem 2.26]). Let B = −A β I .
∫ n ∫ ∞
+2 |g (ξ , η)|2 dηdξ ‖z ‖2 Then, using the same argument we can affirm that B and B ′
−n n
∫ ∞∫ ∞ generate strongly continuous semigroups. Since
[ ]
+ |g (ξ , η)|2 dη|dξ ‖z ‖2 . B′ =
0 −I
= −A
n −∞ A βI
Let Dn = {(ξ , η) : ξ , η ∈ [−n, n]}. The above estimate shows that collecting these properties we have that A and −A generate
strongly continuous semigroups. Consequently, A generates a
∫∫
‖N − Nn ‖2 ≤ 2 |g (ξ , η)|2 dηdξ → 0, n → ∞, strongly continuous group G(t ) on H . As in the previous applica-
R2 \Dn
tion, this implies that the operator G(t ) is not compact.
by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem. This implies the We consider now the controlled wave equation
assertion. 
x′′ (t ) + β x′ (t ) + Ax(t ) = B1 u(t ), (4.7)
This result also holds for some functions g discontinuous (the m
where B1 : R → H is a bounded linear operator. Using the
interested reader can consult [28, Proposition V.4.1]). previous transformation, we can reduce (4.7) to the first order
We define L : C ([−r , 0], X ) → X by L(ψ) = −N ψ(−r ) and B : control system
Rm → X by Bcol(u1 , . . . , u1 ) = i=1 bi (·)ui . By the Lemma 4.1 we
∑m
have that L is a compact map. With this construction, the original w ′ (t ) = Aw(t ) + Bu(t ),
system (4.1)–(4.2) is represented by the abstract system
 
0
where Bu = B u . We assume also that µ ∈ ρ(−A) and ‖R(µ,
1
x′ (t ) = Ax(t ) + L(xt ) + Bu(t ),
−A)‖ ≤ for Re(µ) > 0. Hence, for every λ ∈ C with Re(λ) > 0
C
|µ|
x0 = ϕ, we have that λ ∈ ρ(A),
and as a consequence of the Theorem 3.1 we have the following (λ + β)R(λ(λ + β), −A) R(λ(λ + β), −A)
[ ]
property. (λI − A)−1 =
−AR(λ(λ + β), −A) λR(λ(λ + β), −A)
Corollary 4.1. Under the preceding conditions, if R[λI − A − and ‖(λI − A)−1 ‖ ≤ C , where C > 0 is a generic constant. Thus,
e−λr N , B] = X for all Re(λ) ≥ 0, then the control system (4.1) is under the above conditions, it follows from [15, Theorem V.1.11]
stabilizable. that G(t ) is uniformly exponentially stable.
Finally we consider the controlled wave equation with delay
As a second application we consider the stabilization of the con-
trolled wave equation with delay. The stability of the wave equa- x′′ (t ) + β x′ (t ) + Ax(t ) = B1 u(t ) + L1 (xt ), (4.8)
tion has been studied by many authors. In the last time, several
where L1 : C ([−r , 0], H ) → H is a bounded linear operator. Using
authors have begun to study the stabilizing problem for the wave
the previous transformation, we can reduce (4.8) to the first order
equation subject to different types of controls. Because to its prox- abstract control system with delay
imity to this work, we mention only [29–33]. In [29,31–33] con-
sider a wave equation without delay and establish the conditions to w ′ (t ) = Aw(t ) + Bu(t ) + L(wt ), (4.9)
 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682 681

where L : C ([−r , 0], H ) → H is given by u ∈ Rm such that (I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )x1 = y1 and
B1 u = y2 . We set x = (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 x1 . Hence,
ϕ
[ ] [ ]
0
L = . (λi (λi + β)I + A − L1,λi )x + B1 u
ψ L1 (ϕ)
= (I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )(λi (λi + β)I + A)x + B1 u
The following property is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.1.
= (I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )x1 + B1 u
Corollary 4.2. Under the above conditions, assume that L1 is a = y1 + y2 ,
compact operator and R[λ(λ + β)I + A − L1,λ , B1 ] = H for all which shows that R[λ(λ + β)I + A − L1,λ , B1 ] = H for every
Re(λ) ≥ 0. Then the control system (4.8) is stabilizable. Re(λ) ≥ 0.
Proof. It is clear that L is a compact operator so that G(t )L is also
compact for all t > 0. On the other hand, we take ϕ1 ∈ D(A1/2 ) and Acknowledgments
ψ1 ∈ H. Since
The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous review-
λI
[ ]
−I ers by their many interesting comments and suggestions.
λI − A − Lλ = ,
A − L1,λ (λ + β)I The research of first author was supported in part by CONICYT
under Grant FONDECYT No. 1090009. The research of second
the condition author was partially supported by CNPq/Brazil.
ϕ ϕ
[ ] [ ]
(λI − A − Lλ ) + Bu = 1
ψ ψ1 References

is equivalent to the system
ψ = λϕ − ϕ1
λ(λ + β)ϕ + (A − L1,λ )ϕ + B1 u = ψ1 + (λ + β)ϕ1 .
ϕ
 
Since this system has a solution ψ ,we can affirm that R[λI − A −
Lλ , B] = H . 
Next, for a given operator A, we construct an specific example
of this general result. Let L1 : C ([−r , 0], H ) → H be the linear
map defined by L1 (ϕ) = N ϕ(−r ), where N ∈ L(H ) is a compact
operator. It follows that L1,λ x = e−λr Nx. For Re(λ) ≥ 0, we can
write
λ(λ + β)I + A − L1,λ
= [I − e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 ](λ(λ + β)I + A).
Since ‖e−λr (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 ‖ → 0 as Re(λ) > 0 and |λ| → ∞
the operator I − e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 has bounded inverse and
R(λ(λ + β)I + A − L1,λ ) = H (4.10)
for Re(λ) ≥ 0 and |λ| > γ , for some γ > 0. We denote Dγ = {λ ∈
C : Re(λ) ≥ 0, |λ| ≤ γ }. On the other hand, since N is compact,
[R(I − e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 )]⊥
= ker[(I − e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 )′ ]
and dim[R(I − e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 )]⊥ < ∞ ([35, The-
orems 5.5-C and 5.5-I]). In addition, we consider the operator-
valued function Dγ → L(H ), λ → (e−λr N (λ(λ + β)I + A)−1 )′ .
Since this function is holomorphic, it follows from [36, Theo-
rem VII.1.9] that there are only a finite number of λ ∈ Dγ , denoted
λ1 , . . . , λk , such that ker(I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )′ ̸= {0}.
Consequently, the equality (4.10) is also verified for every λ such
that Re(λ) ≥ 0 and λ ̸= λi , i = 1, . . . , k.
We take m ∈ N sufficiently large and a linear map B1 : Rm → H
such that
k
 Modern Operator Theory, in: Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, vol.
[R(I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )]⊥ ⊆ R(B1 ).
i=1
For each y ∈ H and i = 1, 2, . . . , k, we decompose y = y1 + y2
with y1 ∈ R(I − e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 ) and y2 ∈ [R(I −
e−λi r N (λi (λi + β)I + A)−1 )]⊥ . Therefore, there are x1 ∈ H and
[1] J. O’Reilly, Observers for Linear Systems, Academic Press, London, 1983.
[2] W.M. Wonham, Linear Multivariable Control: A Geometric Approach, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
[3] R. Datko, J. Lagness, M.P. Poilis, An example on the effect of time delays in
boundary feedback stabilization of wave equations, SIAM J. Control Optim. 24
(1986) 152–156.
[4] R. Datko, Not all feedback stabilized hyperbolic systems are robust with
respect to small time delays in their feedbacks, SIAM J. Control Optim. 26
(1988) 697–713.
[5] H. Logemann, R. Rebarber, G. Weiss, Conditions for robustness and nonrobust-
ness of the stability of feedback systems with respect to small delays in the
feedback loop, SIAM J. Control Optim. 34 (1996) 572–600.
[6] R. Rebarber, S. Townley, Robustness with respect to delays for exponential
stability of distributed parameter systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 37 (1999)
230–244.
[7] S. Nicaise, C. Pignotti, Stability and instability results of the wave equation with
a delay term in the boundary or internal feedbacks, SIAM J. Control Optim. 45
(2006) 1561–1585.
[8] L. Pandolfi, Feedback stabilization of functional differential equations, Boll.
Unione Mat. Ital. 11 (4), Suppl. Fasc. 3 (1975) 626–635.
[9] J. Hale, Theory of Functional Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1977.
[10] J. Hale, S.M. Verduyn Lunel, Introduction to Functional Differential Equations,
Springer Verlag, New York, 1993.
[11] V. Kolmanovskii, A. Myshkis, Applied Theory of Functional Differential
Equations, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 1992.
[12] J. Wu, Theory and Applications of Partial Functional Differential Equations,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
[13] H.R. Henríquez, Stabilization of hereditary distributed parameter control
systems, Systems Control Lett. 44 (2001) 35–43.
[14] S. Goldberg, Unbounded Linear Operator, Dover Publ., New York, 1985.
[15] K.-J. Engel, R. Nagel, One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution
Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.
[16] A. Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential
Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
[17] C.C. Travis, G.F. Webb, Existence and stability for partial functional differential
equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 200 (1974) 395–418.
[18] H.R. Henríquez, On non-exact controllable systems, Internat. J. Control 42 (1)
(1985) 71–83.
[19] Y. Hino, S. Murakami, T. Naito, N. Van Minh, A variation of constants formula
for abstract functional differential equations in the phase space, J. Differential
Equations 179 (2002) 336–355.
[20] M.L.J. Hautus, Controllability and observability conditions of linear au-
tonomous systems, Indag. Math. 31 (1969) 443–448.
[21] R. Triggiani, On the stabilizability problem in Banach space, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
52 (3) (1975) 383–403.
[22] R.F. Curtain, A.J. Pritchard, Infinite Dimensional Linear Systems Theory,
in: Lect. Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 8, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1978.
[23] G. Eckstein, Exact controllability and spectrum assignment, in: Topics in
2, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1981, pp. 81–94.
[24] S. Salsa, Partial Differential Equations in Action, in: From Modelling to Theory,
Springer-Verlag, Milan, 2008.
[25] J.D. Murray, Mathematical Biology, I. An Introduction, third ed., Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
[26] A.V. Balakrishnan, Applied Functional Analysis, second ed., Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1981.
682 H.R. Henríquez et al. / Systems & Control Letters 60 (2011) 675–682
[27] R.E. Edwards, Functional Analysis. Theory and Applications, Dover Publica-
tions, Inc., New York, 1995.
[28] R.H. Martin, Nonlinear Operators and Differential Equations in Banach Spaces,
Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co., Florida, 1987.
[29] G.Q. Xu, S.P. Yung, L.K. Li, Stabilization of wave systems with input delay in the
boundary control, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 12 (2006) 770–785.
[30] K. Ammari, S. Nicaise, C. Pignotti, Feedback boundary stabilization of
wave equations with interior delay, Systems Control Lett. 59 (2010)
623–628.
[31] E. Fridman, S. Nicaise, J. Valein, Stabilization of second order evolution
equations with unbounded feedback with time-dependent delay, SIAM J.
Control Optim. 48 (2010) 5028–5052.
[32] S. Nicaise, J. Valein, Stabilization of second order evolution equations with
unbounded feedback with delay, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 16 (2010)
420–456.
[33] Z.-J. Han, G.Q. Xu, Exponential stability of Timoshenko beam system with delay
terms in boundary feedbacks, ESAIM: Control, Optim. Calc. Var. 17 (2011)
552–574.
[34] R.F. Curtain, H.J. Zwart, An Introduction to Infinite-Dimensional Linear Systems
Theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
[35] A.E. Taylor, Introduction to Functional Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1958.
[36] T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1995.