1

Designing Robust Controller for Magnetic

Suspension System as a Project for Robust Control
& Convex Optimization Course
Farhad Farokhi

I. I NTRODUCTION
This report deals with the problem of designing robust
controller for a magnetic suspension system. Feedback control
is essential for magnetic suspension systems because they
are unstable systems naturally. The mathematical model of
these systems have various uncertainties such as parame-
ters identification errors, unmodeled dynamics, and neglected
nonlinearities. Because of these uncertainties in modeling of
the system, the controller is required to have robustness for
stability and performance.
The rest of this report is organized as follows. In section II,
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the system [1].
the mathematical modeling of the system with uncertainties
are discussed. In section III, H ∞ and μ-synthesis controller Multiplicative Uncertainty Model
0
designing approaches are presented and simulation results 10

are given. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented in

section IV.
−1
(P (jω) − P̃ (jω))/P (jω)

10
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SUSPENSION SYSTEM

Parameter Minimum Value Nominal Value Maximum Value −2

10
R (Ω) 25.6 26.6 27.6
L (H) 0.518 0.558 0.608
M (Kg) 1.70 1.75 1.80
I (A) 1.08 1.15 1.23 −3
10
x0 (m) 4.70 × 10−3 5.00 × 10−3 5.30 × 10−3
k (Nm2 /A2 ) 2.64 × 10−4 2.84 × 10−4 2.08 × 10−4
E (V) 27.6 30.6 33.9
−4
10
−2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10
ω

II. M ODEL S TRUCTURE Fig. 2. (P (jω) − Pnom (jω))/Pnom (jω) and Wm (jω) versus ω for
A. Electromagnetic Suspension System one hundred random parameters.

The structure of the electromagnetic suspension system is

shown schematically in figure 1. The objective of our control
experiments is to suspend the ball made of iron with attractive
electromagnetic forces. It should be noted that this system is
essentially unstable. The nominal value, the minimum value
and the maximum value of different parameters of the system
are mentioned in table I.
B. Model of Electromagnetic Suspension System
My purpose in this section of the report is to introduce the
model of the system in different working situations. We will
Farhad Farokhi is a PhD student in Automatic Control Laboratory, School of
Electrical Engineering, The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm,
Sweden. (e-mails: farhad.farokhi@ee.kth.se)
Swedish Personal Number:870515-6795
use two different model structures for the system shown in
figure 1. These two models are finite dimensional, linear, and
time-invariant of the following state-space representation
ż = Az + Bu, y = Cz, (1)
where
z=[ x ẋ i ]T , u = e, y = z. (2)
For the definition of x, i, e check the Fig. 1. Since the
behavior of electromagnetic force is nonlinear, we then use
the linearization method around the operating point.
1) Ideal Mathematical Model - Constant Inductance: The
following assumptions are used in the procedure of modeling
the electromagnetic suspension system.
 2

−5 Nyquist Diagram For The Random Transfer Functions

x 10
8

4
{P (jω) − P̃ (jω)}

−2

−4

−6

−8
−0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
{P (jω) − P̃ (jω)} −4
x 10

Fig. 3. The Nyquist diagram for the random transfer functions and the weight Fig. 5. Interconnection Structure
function for additive uncertainty.
Nominal H∞ Controller

Additive Uncertainty Model 6

−5
10

−6 5
10

−7
10 4
P (jω) − P̃ (jω)

−8
10
μ

3
−9
10

−10 2
10

−11
10 1

−12
10
0
−2 0 2 4
−13 10 10 10 10
10 ω
−2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10
ω

Fig. 6. μ analysis of the closed loop system with H∞ controller based on

Fig. 4. (P (jω) − Pnom (jω) and Wa (jω) versus ω for one hundred the nominal model. The robust performance (green line), robust stability (blue
random parameters related unmodeled nonlinearities. line), and nominal performance (red line) are shown in this figure.

• Magnetic permeability of the electromagnet is infinity. can be neglected. In view of these equations, the linear time-
• Magnetic flux density and magnetic field have not hys- invariant mathematical model is given by
teresis, and they are not saturated. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0
• Eddy current in the magnetic pole can be neglected.
A = ⎣ Kx 0 Ki ⎦ , B = ⎣ 0 ⎦ , (6)
1
Using these assumption and considering the physical nature 0 0 − LR0 L0
of the system, we have

2 C= 1 0 0 , (7)
d x
m = mg − f, (3)
dt2 where Kx = 2kI 2 /(m(X + x0 )3 ) and Ki = −2kI/(m(X +
 2 x0 )2 ). Now, because of the uncertainties of the parameters in
i these equation, a multiplicative uncertainty model is added to
f =k , (4)
x + X + x0 the system. Using the nominal parameters for the system we
have
d −77.63
e = Ri + [L(x)i], (5) Pnom (s) = (8)
dt (s + 51.65)(s − 51.65)(s + 31.67)
where k, X, and x0 are constant parameters related to the We must select Wm (s) such that
operating point. At this point we will assume that the coil
inductance constant near an operating point (L(x) = L 0 ) P (s) − Pnom (s)
= Wm (s)Δ(s), Δ(s) ≤ 1. (9)
and the electromotive forces due to the differential of the gap Pnom (s)
 3

Nominal H Controller
∞
1
2) Ideal Mathematical Model - L(x): In this subsection, I
assume that the coil inductance L(x) is a function of a gap x,
0.9
and written as follows [1]
0.8
2k
0.7 L(x) = , (12)
x + X + x0
0.6
Using the above equation we get
 
μ

0.5
2ki dx 2k di
e = Ri − + + L 0 ,
0.4
(x + X + x0 )2 dt x + X + x0 dt
0.3 (13)
0.2
using this equation results in the following linear, time-
invariant model of the system
0.1 ⎡ ⎤
0
0 1 0
−2
10 10
0

ω
10
2
10
4
A = ⎣ Kx 0 Ki ⎦ , (14)
0 Kv − R L
Fig. 7. μ analysis of the closed loop system using D-K iteration (second where
iteration). The robust performance (green line), robust stability (blue line), 2k
and nominal performance (red line) are shown in this figure. L= + L0 , (15)
x + X + x0
and
2ki
Step Response
Kv = . (16)
1 L(x + X + x0 )2
0.8 We call this an unmodeled nonlinearity in the system, and
0.6
we can model it with an additive uncertainty block. Figure
4 exhibits P (jω) − Pnom (jω) and Wa (jω) versus ω for
0.4
one hundred random parameters K v ∈ [35.0137, 42.7945],
and L − L0 ∈ [0.10, 0.13]. Here it should be noted that the
Amplitude

0.2
System: untitled1
Final Value: −0.00493
0 magnitude of the uncertainty weighting W a covers all the
System: untitled1
Settling Time (sec): 0.146
model perturbations shown in Figure 4. The red line is based
−0.2
on
s(s/9 + 1)(s/600 + 1)3
−0.4

Wa = 1.7 × 10−7 . (17)

−0.6
(s/25 + 1)(s/50 + 1)3 (s/110 + 1)
−0.8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time (sec) III. D ESIGN
All the simulations and designs are done with MATLAB
Fig. 8. The step response of the closed loop system Fl (P1 , K2 ) from using μ-Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox [3] on a DELL
reference input to the error. Latitude E6410, with 2.4 GHz CPU, and 4GB RAM.

A. Control Objective
at each frequency. Considering Δ(s) ≤ 1, results in


Electromagnetic suspension system is essentially unstable.

P (jω) − Pnom (jω)
We must design a robust controller to stabilize the closed-loop


≤ Wm (jω), (10)

Pnom (jω)
system; furthermore, we would like to design a controller to
maintain the performance against uncertainties. Figure 5 ex-
for all ω ∈ R. Figure 2 exhibits (P (jω) − hibit the interconnection structure of the system. To follow the
Pnom (jω))/Pnom (jω) and Wm (jω) versus ω for one command at low frequency band, the performance weighting
hundred random parameter K x ∈ [3.09 × 103 , 3.78 × 103 ], function Wp (s) is chosen as
Ki ∈ [−16.42, −13.43], R ∈ [25.6, 27.6], and
20
L0 ∈ [1.08, 1.23]. Here it should be noted that the Wp = . (18)
magnitude of the uncertainty weighting W m covers all the s+1
model perturbations shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the
B. H∞ Design
Nyquist diagram for the random transfer functions and the
weight function. The blue one is based on random transfer An H∞ nominal performance is designed for the plant in
functions and in each frequency these blue circle exhibit a this subsection. For designing the controller we assume that the
measure of the uncertainty in that frequency. The red circles uncertainties are zero. With assumption the closed loop system
are based on satisfies the nominal performance, but it fails to satisfy robust
stability and robust performance. As you can see in figure
(s/60 + 1) 6, this controller does not have robustness for stability and
Wm (s) = .175 . (11)
(s/30 + 1) performance.
 4

(s + 58.60)(s + 47.67)(s + 49.29)

K1 (s) = −1.99 × 1018 . (23)
(s + 2.16 × 108 )(s + 4.91 × 105 )(s + 1.00 × 103 )(s − 5.94 × 10−2 )

(s + 1.52 × 102 )(s + 1.092 )(s + 8.30 × 10−1 )(s + 4.52 × 10−2 )(s + 4.26)(s + 2.49 × 101 )
×(s + 2.12 × 101 )(s + 3.00 × 101 )(s + 5.86 × 101 )(s + 5.00 × 101 )
×(s + 4.99 × 101 + i2.31 × 10−2 )(s + 4.99 × 101 − i2.31 × 10−2 )(s + 4.77 × 101 )
K2 (s) = −1.56 × 106 . (24)
(s + 3.36 × 102 + i3.99 × 102 )(s + 3.36 × 102 − i3.99 × 102 )(s + 1.24 × 102 + i2.53 × 101 )
×(s + 1.24 × 102 − i2.53 × 101 )(s + 5.14 × 101 + i2.09)(s + 5.14 × 102 − i2.09)
×(s + 4.83 × 101 )(s + 2.84 × 101 )(s + 5.97)(s + 1.01)(s + 1.76 × 10−1 )(s + 4.52 × 10−2 )

C. μ-Synthesis 2

We first define a block structure Δ P as 1.5

⎧⎡ ⎤ ⎫
⎨ Δa 0 0 ⎬ 1

ΔP = ⎣ 0 Δm 0 ⎦ : Δa ∈ C, Δm ∈ C, Δp ∈ C ,
⎩ ⎭ 0.5
0 0 Δp
(19)

e(t)
0
where C denotes the set of complex numbers. Next we
consider the generalized plant partitioned as −0.5

  −1
P11 P12
P = . (20)
P21 P22 −1.5

We can get a lower fractional transformation F l (P, K) on P −2

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
time (s)
by K

Fl (P, K) := P11 + P12 (I − P22 K)−1 P21 .
Considering the equation (21) the robust performance and
stability is equivalent to the following μ test
(21) Fig. 9. The closed loop system step response (from input to error) for
the initial H∞ controller (red color) and the step response for the closed
loop system with μ-synthesized controller (blue one) with the worst-case
perturbation.

sup μΔP [Fl (P, K)(jω)] < 1. (22) E. Worst-Case Perturbation

ω∈R
D. D-K Iteration
Our approach taken here is the so-called D-K iteration
procedure. The D-K iteration involves a sequence of mini-
mizations over either K i or D while holding the other fixed,
until a satisfactory controller is constructed. First, for D = I
fixed, the controller K 1 is synthesized using the well-known
state-space H∞ optimization method. Let P l = P denote the
given open-loop interconnection structure in figure (5), and
Fl (P1 , K1 ) be the closed-loop transfer function from reference
input to the error. The resultant controller is in equation (23).
Using D-K iteration at the second iteration the controller will
be (24). For this controller we have
sup μΔP [Fl (P1 , K2 )(jω)] < 0.8470. (25)
ω∈R
One can see the μ-analysis of the closed loop system with K 2
is shown in figure 7 and The step response of the closed loop
system Fl (P1 , K2 ) from reference input to the error is shown
in in figure 8.
Figure 9 exhibit the closed loop system step response (from
input to error) for the worst-case perturbation. The red curve
shows the step response for the closed loop system with H ∞
controller and the blue curve the step response for the closed
loop system with μ-synthesized controller. As one can see
the closed loop system for μ-synthesized controller is stable
with this worst case perturbation but the closed loop system is
unstable for the initial H ∞ controller with this perturbation.
June 22nd , 2010.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Fujita, T. Namerikawa, F. Matsumura, and K. Uchida, “μ-Synthesis
of an Electromagnetic Suspension System”, IEEE Transaction on Au-
tomatic Control, Vol. 40, No. 3, March 1995.
[2] T. Namerikawa, and M. Fujita, “Modeling and Robustness Analysis of
a Magnetic Suspension System Considering Structured Uncertainties”,
Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Decision & Control San Diego,
California, USA, December 1997.
[3] G. J. Balas, J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, A. Packard, R. Smith, “μ-
Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox For Use with MATLAB ”, Users
Guide, Version 3, The MathWorks, Inc., June 2001.
[4] S. Tuna, “How to control a Magnetic Suspension System in Two
Months”, Robust Control Course Projects, University of California,
Santa Barbara, June 2001.