2009 Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference
Nonlinear control of a Magnetic Levitation System
Jesus Liceaga-Castro, Diana Hernandez-Alcantara, Luis Amezquita-Brooks
Mechatronics
ITESM CEM
Edo. Mexico, Mexico
jliceaga@itesm.mx, A00469139@itesm.mx, lamezquita@itesm.mx
Abstract—In this paper the identification, analysis, design and
implementation of a controller for the ECP730 magnetic
levitation system is presented. The system model, which
presents interesting structural properties reported here for the
first time, is nonlinear and hence a feedback linearization
approach is used. In addition, an external control loop with an
integral factor is used to achieve zero steady state error. Due to
the nonlinear nature of the static friction and the integral
factor, the control system presents a stick-slip behavior. In
order to eliminate such effect in the steady state, a switching
controller is implemented. This approach switches between a
linear controller with and without integral factor. Real time
results showing the control system performance are included.
Keywords- Magnetic levitation; nonlinear control; feedback
linearization; stick-slip
I. INTRODUCTION
Since magnetic-levitation-systems (MLS) are able to
suspend objects, mechanical friction is reduced or
eliminated. Because of this, magnetic levitation has
numerous practical applications in industry and currently
being researched. Some of them are magnetic levitation
passenger trains [1], frictionless bearings [2], micro-
positioning systems [3], vibration isolation tables [4] and
magnetic space launch systems [5]. Thus, the development
of high-performance controllers for MLS is necessary. On
the other hand, MLS are inherently nonlinear due to the
interaction of magnetic fields and they may be stable or
unstable depending on the system configuration (i.e.
repulsive or attractive) [6].
Many linear and nonlinear techniques have been
proposed for controlling these systems [7], [8], [9], [10]. It
is well known that for a small range motions, the nonlinear
system behaves similarly to its linearized approximation.
However, the performance of a linear control rapidly
deteriorates when the system deviates from the original
operating point. In order to design a control system capable
of operating with a uniform performance for wide range of
operation, it is necessary to consider a nonlinear control
technique. Therefore, feedback linearization was selected as
a first control approach.
978-0-7695-3799-3/09 $26.00 © 2009 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/CERMA.2009.10
Feedback linearization has been proposed as a control
technique for magnetic levitation systems in [8] and [9].
However, it is widely known that the performance of
feedback linearization control systems is heavily dependent
on the exact cancellation of nonlinear terms and such
cancellations are not possible without a perfect model. In
addition, since feedback linearization does not inherently
contain an integral factor, low steady state tracking error is
only possible via high feedback gains. Nonetheless, it was
observed that high feedback gains tend to induce
oscillations [11]. Therefore an additional robust control
design approach is needed. For simplicity, an external
robust (in the classical sense) linear controller with an
integral factor is designed.
Due to the nonlinear nature of the static friction in the
device and the integral effect of the controller, the system
enters in a sliding condition which is commonly known as
the “stick-slip” effect. It is well known that in order to
reduce the slip-stick effect PD controllers should be used
[12]. In order to address this problem, a switching controller
is devised. This controller switches between a linear
controller with and without integral factor in order to
eliminate the slip-stick effect in the steady state.
The model of the device can be represented as the closed
loop of a nonlinear factor and a second order LTI system. It
was observed that the effect of the nonlinear factor tends to
be negligible as the difference between the poles of the LTI
system is greater. That is, the poles should be separated.
Therefore the feedback linearization control law is designed
so that the poles of the closed-loop system are separated.
Finally, the proposed control scheme was implemented
and real time responses, showing the effectiveness of the
control system, are included.
II. DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE MAGNETIC LEVITATION
SYSTEM
The magnetic levitation system ECP730 is shown in
Fig. 1.
The system consist of: a drive coil that produces a
magnetic field in response to a DC current, a high density
field rare earth magnet, a glass guide rod and a laser sensor
which measures the magnet position. By energizing the coil,
351
391
the magnet is levitated along the glass rod though a nonlinear factor and a second order LTI system with poles
repulsive magnetic force. p1 and p2 equal to the eigenvalues of A, as shown in
Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Representation of the system

Note that an eigenvalue of A is always equal to zero;

Fig. 1. Magnetic levitation system
The magnet is acted on by forces from the drive coil,
gravity and friction. According to the force balance analysis,
the dynamic equation of motion is:
my + cy = Fu − mg r (1)
where m is the mass of the magnet, y is the distance
between the coil and the magnet in centimeters, c is the
friction coefficient, g r is the gravity, and Fu is the
magnetic force. Due to physical construction characteristics
y ∈ [ 0,10] .
The magnetic force can be modeled as [13], [14]:
nonetheless, for analysis purposes, arbitrary eigenvalues are
considered. An important relationship between the relative
location of the eigenvalues of A and the transient response
of system (4) is illustrated in Fig. 3. In this figure, the step
responses when the eigenvalues of A are: {-1,-10}, {-5,-5},
{-10,-100} and {-50,-50} are presented. A high peak
response in the second and fourth cases can be observed. In
addition, note that in all cases the LTI system is over-
damped. From this figure the following conclusions can be
made:
ƒ The nonlinearities of system (4) can produce high
peak responses even when the eigenvalues of A are
real (i.e. over-damped poles).
ƒ These peak responses are attenuated when the
eigenvalues of A are over-damped and separated (i.e.
one pole is dominant).

u 10
Fu = (2)
b( y + a ) 4
8
where a and b are positive constants and u is the control
effort in Volts. 6
From (1) and (2), the nonlinear equation of motion
y

yields:
4

1
y = −c1 y − g r +
 u (3) poles at -1 and -10
mb( y + a) 4 2 poles at -5
poles at -10 and -100
poles at -50
where: c1  c / m . 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
time
A state space realization of the nonlinear model is given
Fig. 3. Step response of the system for different location of the poles
by:
From this observation, it is advisable that the desired
⎡0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤ linear dynamics imposed via feedback linearization would be
x = Ax + ⎢ ⎥+⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢− gr ⎥ ⎢ ⎥u such that the poles lay as widely separated as possible
⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ b ( x1 + a ) ⎥⎦ (without incurring in actuator saturation).
4
⎢⎣ (4)
⎡0 1 ⎤ III. SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
y = x1 ; x = [ x1 x2 ] ; A = ⎢
T
⎥
⎣0 −c1 ⎦ In order to identify the parameters of the model the
following procedure can be applied.
Note that the system is control-affine. Consider that system (3) has reached the steady state,
Neglecting gravity and normalizing the output, system then:
(4) can be represented as the non linear closed loop of a

392
352
 u = mgr b( y + a)4 (5) where: K  [ k1 k2 ] = [1394 92.437] and u is the new
system input (reference).
Using polinomial least squares, steady state
Substituting f(x), g(x) and (7) in (6) the resulting control
experimental data and considering that the magnet weight is
effort is given by:
mgr=138.31Kgcm/s2, the coefficients a and b were
estimated as shown in Fig. 4. u = mb ( x1 + a ) [ − k 2 x2 − k1 x1 + k1u + g r + c1 x2 ]
4
(8)
Parameter c1 was determined based on the step response
of the linearized system. The real time step response of the system using the
The resulting parameters of the magnetic levitation control law (8) and a full order Luenberger observer with
system are: poles in -100 is shown in Fig. 5.
a = 7.17184 [ cm] , b = 1.6163 × 10 −6 ⎡⎣V N ⋅ cm 4 ⎤⎦ 1.6

m = 0.141[ Kg ] , g r = 981 ⎡⎣ cm s 2 ⎤⎦ , c1 = 8.563 1.4

u @V D
1.2

3.5 1

0.000223571 H y+7.171841L

position [cm]
3.0 4
0.8
2.5
0.6
2.0
0.4
1.5
magnet position
1.0 0.2 reference

0.5

y @cmD
0
0 1 2 3 4
time
1 2 3 4
Fig. 4. Magnet position vs. control effort plot Fig. 5. Step response of the system using controller (8)

The response is acceptable and is comparable to what has

been reported [11]. On the other hand, since feedback
IV. FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION CONTROLLER linearization does not inherently contain an integral factor,
Since (4) is in the companion form with: low steady state tracking error is only possible via high
T feedback gains. However, the level of oscillations is already
⎡ ⎤
−c1 x2 − g r ] , g ( x ) = ⎢0
f ( x ) = [ x2 on its practical limit; thus, a further reduction of the steady
T 1
4 ⎥
⎣ mb ( x1 + a ) ⎦ state error by increasing the feedback gains is not possible.
then the system can be linearized using the control input Moreover, the robustness of feedback linearization
[15]: controllers is heavily dependent on the exact cancellation of
nonlinear terms and such cancellations are not possible
1 without a perfect model. Therefore, a robust integral effect
u= ⎡ v − f ( x ) ⎤⎦
g ( x) ⎣ (6) controller should be introduced.

where v is the new system input. V. INTEGRAL EFFECT CONTROLLER

Since Lg h ( x ) = 0 and Lg L f h ( x ) = 1
4 ≠ 0 , the An integral effect controller is designed and
mb( x1 + a )
implemented in an external control loop, as shown in
relative degree of the system is two and is equal to the Fig. 6.
system order, the system can be fully linearized and there is
no internal dynamics.
In this case, v is designed using traditional static state
feedback poles placement.
As seen in section II, it is convenient to place the poles
of the system widely separated. If the poles are located at
−16.5 and −84.5 the desired characteristic equation is
p ( λ ) = λ 2 + 101λ + 1394 .
Therefore:
v = − k2 x2 − k1 x1 + k1u (7) Fig. 6. Block diagram of the control system with the integral controller

393
353
 Consider controller (9) and the static state feedback (10). while eliminating the slip-stick effect in the steady state. In
addition, the switching should occur when the system is in a
u ( s ) 9.751s + 59.96
C (s) = = (9) neighborhood of the sliding surface (shown in Fig. 9).
e( s ) s
2
K = [100 52.437] (10)
1.8

This control system has the classical robustness margins 1.6

of ¶dB and 59°.

Control Effort [Volts]

Fig. 7 shows the real time step response using the 1.4

control law of equation (8) with (10) and the controller of 1.2
equation (9). In this figure, it is possible to note that the
1
system enters in a sliding condition. This occurs due to the
nonlinear nature of the static friction in the device and the 0.8
integral factor of (9). It is widely known that integral control
in the presence of static friction tends to generate the "stick- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time
slip" effect [12].
Fig. 8. Control effort.

1.8

1.6 14

1.4 12

1.2
10
position [cm]

u
1
8
0.8

0.6 6
10
0.4 magnet position
reference
0
0.2
de/dt 0.4
0 0.2
0 -0.4 -0.2
-10 -0.8 -0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -1
e
time

Fig. 7. Step response of the system using the PI controller. Fig. 9. Sliding surface

In Fig. 8 the real time control effort for the same Trough an experimental analysis of the real time stick-
experiment is presented. From this figure it is clear that the slip responses it was possible to conclude that in all cases
stick-slip effect tends to create an unwanted oscillation on the sliding surface of the stick-slip was contained by the
the control system. state space region defined by | e |< 0.12 and | e |< 3.7 .
The sliding surface of the stick-slip can be characterized Additionally, it was necessary to introduce a low pass
trough the study of Fig. 9 where the real time response of the filter for e to reduce noise problems which may induce a
control effort, the error and the time derivative of the error limit cycle. This filter was designed as a unitary gain low
are shown in a parametic plot. pass first order filter with a bandwidth of 20rad/s, that is:
It is well known that in order to reduce the slip-stick
20
effect PD type controllers should be used [12]. In order to e ( s ) = e( s )
address this problem, a switching controller is presented on ( s + 20)
the next section. The resulting switching controller is:
VI. SWITCHING CONTROLLER ⎧ u a if e > 0.11 ∧ e > 0.1
⎪
The objective of this controller is to take advantage of u =⎨
the properties of an integral and a non-integral controller. ⎪⎩ ub + u a if e ≤ 0.11 ∧ e ≤ 0.1
The integral action controller provides low steady state error where
without high proportional gain when the error is large while u a = 59.96 xa + 9.71ea ; x a = ea (11)
the non-integral controller provides low steady state error
without inducing stick-slip. The switching should occur u b = − 931.2 xb + 18.83e; xb = − 100 xb + e
when the integral action controller has reduced the error as ⎧ e if e > 0.11 ∧ e > 0.1
⎪
much as it could. Then, the non-integral action controller ea = ⎨
maintains this low level of error (or may further reduce it) ⎪⎩ 0 if e ≤ 0.11 ∧ e ≤ 0.1

394
354
 The block diagram of the control system including the Finally, Fig. 13 shows the real time response of the
switching controller is shown in Fig. 10. magnet position y to a trapezoidal reference. From this
figure it is possible to see that the proposed scheme also has
a good response under tracking conditions.
3.5
magnet position
reference trajectory

position [cm]
Fig. 10. Block diagram of the control system

2.5
Finally, the real time response of the control system
using controllers (8) with (10) and (11) are shown in Figs.
11 and 12. In particular Fig. 12 shows the error together
with the control effort. 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time
In these figures it is clear that the switching controller is Fig. 13. Response of the magnet position to a trapezoidal reference.
capable of eliminating the slip-stick effect in the steady state
while achieving low steady state error. Moreover, the
control system does not incur in saturations ( | u |< 7 V ) or
VII. CONCLUSION
excessive oscillations.
In this paper the design of a nonlinear controller for the
1.8
ECP730 magnetic levitation system is presented.
In order to obtain an adequate design model, an
1.6
identification procedure was devised. In addition, an
1.4 analysis of the model structure revealed significant
1.2 properties which allowed proposing an adequate closed loop
pole configuration.
position [cm]

1
Using the identified system, a control law based on
0.8 feedback linearization approach was obtained.
0.6 Due to the lack of robustness and low steady state error a
robust (in the classical sense) external linear control loop
0.4
magnet position with integral action was designed.
reference
0.2 The resulting control system presented a “stick-slip”
0 behavior. Therefore a switching controller was used in order
0 2 4 6 8
time to improve the response of the system. Trough this
Fig. 11. Step response of the control system using the switching procedure it was possible to control the position of the
controller levitated object taking advantage of the properties of both
integral and non-integral controllers.
1
The control system was implemented in real time.
Experimental results show that the system is effective in
0.5 tracking control with low steady state error and without
change in control law presenting the stick-slip phenomena in steady state.
0

REFERENCES
-0.5 [1]. Motoharu, Ono, Shunsaku, Koga and Hisao, Ohtsuki. "Japan
Superconductive Train". IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine.
Vol. 5. No. 1. March 2002, pp. 9-15.
-1 [2]. Mukhopadhyay, S.C., et al. "Design, analysis and control of a new
error [cm]
repulsive-type magnetic bearing system". IEE Proceedings Electric Power
control effort [V]
Applications. Vol. 146. No. 1. Jan. 1999, pp. 33-40.
-1.5 [3]. Iizuka, T. and Fujita, H. "Precise positioning of a micro conveyor
0 2 4 6 8
time based on superconducting magnetic levitation". Proceedings of the 1997
Fig. 12. Error signal and control effort

395
355
International Symposium on Micromechatronics and Human Science. Oct.
1997, pp. 131-137.
[4]. Nagaya, K. and Ishikawa, M. "A noncontact permanent magnet
levitation table with electromagnetic control and its vibration isolation
method using direct disturbance cancellation combining optimal
regulators". IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. Vol. 31. No. 1. Jan. 1995,
pp. 885- 896.
[5]. Powell, J., et al. "Maglev Launch and the Next Race to Space". 2008
IEEE Aerospace Conference. March 2008, pp. 1-20.
[6]. Lee, Hyung, Kim, Ki and Lee, Ju. "Review of Maglev Train
Technologies". IEEE Transactions on magnetics. Vols. 42. No. 7.
July,2006, pp. 1917-1925.
[7]. Lee, Ting-En, Su, Juhng-Perng and Yu, Ker-Wei. "Implementation of
the State Feedback Control Scheme for a Magnetic Levitation System".
2007 Second IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications.
May 2007, pp. 548-553.
[8]. Trumper, David L., Olson, Sean M. y Subrahmanyan, Pradeep K.
"Linearizing Control of Magnetic Suspension Systems". IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology. Vols. 5. No. 4. July, 1997, págs. 427-438.
396
356
[9]. Joo, SungJun and Seo, Jin H. "Design and Analysis of the Nonlinear
Feedback Linearizing Control for an Electromagnetic Suspension System".
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. Vols. 5. No.1.
January, 1997, pp. 135-144.
[10]. Hajjaji, Ahmed El and Ouladsine, M. "Modeling and Nonlinear
Control of Magnetic Levitation System". IEEE Transactions on industrial
electronics. Vol. 48. No. 4. August 2001, pp. 831-838.
[11]. Mizutanil, T., Katayama, H. and Ichikawa, A. “Tracking Control of a
Magnetic Levitation System by Feedback Linearization”. SICE Annual
Conference in Sapporo. Vol. 1. August 2004, pp. 121-126.
[12]. Dupont, Pierre E. "Avoiding stick-slip through PD control". IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control. Vol. 39. No.5., pp. 1094-1097. May
1994.
[13]. Parks, Thomas. Manual for model 730: Magnetic Levitation System.
USA : ECP, Educational Control Products. 1999.
[14]. Moon, Francis C. Superconducting Levitation: Applications to
bearings and magnetic transportation. New York : Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[15]. Slotine, Jean Jeaques and Li, Weiping. Applied Nonlinear Control.
N.J. : Prientice Hall, 1991.