Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence

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

Research paper

A fixed-time sliding mode control for uncertain magnetic levitation systems

with prescribed performance and anti-saturation input
Anh Tuan Vo a , Thanh Nguyen Truong a , Hee–Jun Kang a ,∗, Tien Dung Le b
a
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Ulsan, Daehak-ro 93, Nam-Gu, Ulsan, 680-749, South Korea
b
The University of Danang – University of Science and Technology, 54 Nguyen Luong Bang Street, Danang 550000, Viet Nam

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper proposes a novel control strategy for uncertain magnetic levitation (UML) systems. Our method
Magnetic levitation systems is fundamentally based on terminal sliding mode (TSM) and prescribed performance (PP) control theory.
Prescribed performance control In contrast to conventional TSM and PP methods, which heavily rely on a precise model of the dynamics,
Neural networks
our approach breaks free from the constraint of requiring such precision. It employs a neural network (NN)
Fixed-time control
to approximate unknown functions and the components that may cause singularities in the control input.
Input saturation
Additionally, the dual PP functions designed in this novel approach not only effectively manage maximum
overshoot but also ensure symmetric steady-state tracking error (SSTE) boundaries, rapidly minimizing errors
to zero within a fixed time. Moreover, this approach reduces chattering. On the other hand, to mitigate the
adverse impact of input saturation, a fixed-time auxiliary system (FTAS) is introduced into the control design.
As a result of these proposals, the approach enables the attainment of multiple desired performance indicators
within a predetermined domain and a fixed time, particularly under conditions of uncertainties and input
saturation. These indicators include convergence, SSTE, and maximum overshoot. The stability of the proposed
scheme has been rigorously established by applying the stable principles of Lyapunov theory and fixed-time
control (FTC) theory. Experiments serve to validate the exceptional performance of the proposed strategy under
a range of diverse operating conditions.

1. Introduction equilibrium point. As a result, control effectiveness is greatly compro-

Due to its remarkable features such as active control and non-
contact, magnetic levitation (ML) technology has experienced signifi-
cant advancements in recent years. It has been found widespread appli-
cations in various fields, including aerospace, industry, and transporta-
tion, with maglev vehicles serving as prominent examples (Do Chung
et al., 2017; Ahmad and Amin, 2017). However, the ML system in-
herently possesses characteristics of open-loop instability, significant
nonlinearity, and uncertain disturbances. Furthermore, its parameters
are subject to time variations and uncertainties induced by external
disturbances (Lee et al., 2006; Ren and Oka, 2022). Therefore, it be-
comes crucial to employ robust control strategies against disturbances
and achieve stability performance for the UML systems. Existing control
methods of the ML systems can be broadly categorized into three main
methods: linear control (Galvão et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2020a),
direct nonlinear control (DNC) (Ren and Oka, 2022; Ahmad and Javaid,
2010), and data-driven control (DDC) (Chen et al., 2018).
Linear control relies on a local linearization model, which signif-
icantly reduces its accuracy when the system’s state is far from its
mised.
There are two types of DNC: the first one is based on a global
linearization model known as feedback linearization (Rubio et al.,
2022; Farahmand et al., 2023; García-Chávez et al., 2023), while the
second one directly utilizes the nonlinear model without employing
any linearization approximations (Lughofer and Skrjanc, 2022; de Jesús
Rubio, 2023; de Jesús Rubio et al., 2024). In Ren and Oka (2022),
a control strategy combining centralized feedback linearization and
tuning methods was proposed for improved robustness against step
disturbances. While the feedback linearization-based system model
enhances accuracy and simplicity, it introduces a new feedback loop,
adding complexity to controller design and highlighting the need for
further improvements in stability and disturbance robustness. Addition-
ally, there is a need for further enhancement in system stability and
disturbance robustness. Alternatively, the second method applies the
nonlinear model directly, encompassing backstepping control (Adıgüzel
et al., 2018), adaptive control (Yang and Tateishi, 2001), robust con-
trol (Kaloust et al., 2004), and sliding mode control (SMC) (Al-Muthairi

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hjkang@ulsan.ac.kr (H.- Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108373
Received 3 January 2024; Received in revised form 21 February 2024; Accepted 30 March 2024
Available online 16 April 2024
0952-1976/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.T. Vo et al.
et al., 2004; Sathiyavathi et al., 2019), among others. As an example,
Ref. Jang et al. (2005) introduces the application of SMC to mitigate the
impacts of nonlinearities and fluctuations in system parameters within
the active magnetic bearing (AMB) system. Ref. Dong and You (2014)
discusses the application of two types of the adaptive control techniques
based on full-state feedback, which possess disturbance rejection ca-
pabilities, in the AMB system. In Ref. Yang et al. (2020a), adaptive
backstepping control (ABC) considering state constraints, uncertain
parameters, and nonstationarity for the AMB system has been proposed
to improve rotor position tracking performance. However, the design of
DNC heavily depends on precise dynamical models, which means that
control performance cannot be guaranteed when using an imprecise
model.
DDC methods eliminate the need for an imprecise model and in-
stead utilize input and output data to find optimal control parameters.
Notable algorithms in this area include machine learning, the radial
basis function neural network (RBFNN), fuzzy logic systems (FLS),
and optimization. Ref. Yadav et al. (2018) describes the development
of a controller based on an optimization algorithm to optimize the
PID parameters for the ML system, resulting in enhanced levitation
performance. In Ref. Sun et al. (2020), a controller that utilizes RBFNN
has been proven effective in addressing external disturbances and
time delays for Maglev trains. In Ref. Jing et al. (2013), RBFNN is
employed to compensate for the gap sensor in a high-speed maglev
train. In Ref. Yang et al. (2020b), an intelligent control algorithm was
introduced to the ML system. This algorithm merged known parameters
and unknown disturbances in the system into a lumped uncertainty,
thereby reducing the dependency on a precise dynamical model. Based
on existing studies and a comparison of RBFNNs with FLSs and other
approximation methods, RBFNNs’ universal approximation capability
is a standout feature. They excel at handling complex and nonlinear
relationships, making them a robust choice. Their high accuracy in
function approximation is particularly beneficial for precision-critical
applications, and their rapid convergence is crucial for time-sensitive
tasks or real-time. Additionally, the utilization of radial basis functions
ensures a smooth output, a crucial feature for applications that demand
seamless transitions. The aforementioned strengths position RBFNNs as
an appealing choice for controlling ML systems in this study.
The SMC has garnered significant attention due to its strong dis-
turbance robustness and fast dynamic response. The SMC guides the
system’s state trajectory along the designated sliding mode surface
by utilizing discontinuous control law (DCL) (Sira-Ramírez, 1992).
However, this discontinuous switching behavior often results in an
undesirable phenomenon known as chattering. To address this, re-
searchers have explored various techniques. For example, in Ref. Kuo
et al. (2005), the FLS integrated with the SMC reduces chattering
and improves the dynamic performance of the ML system. In Ref.
Wai et al. (2010), SMC is combined with particle swarm SMC to
enhance the ML system’s adaptability to external disturbances and
reduce chattering. High-order sliding mode (HOSM) algorithms can
also effectively address chattering and provide high accuracy. In Wang
et al. (2020b), the second-order sliding mode (SOSM) method applied
to the AMB system demonstrated faster system response and reduced
chattering effects. However, due to the use of the linear SM surface, the
SSTE asymptotically approaches zero in the stage of the sliding mode
motion rather than reaching zero in finite time (FNT). Additionally,
the integration of a DCL into control system leads to a discontinuity
of control signal. The TSM method was introduced to overcome these
limitations (Venkataraman and Gulati, 1993). Its main contributions
are achieving FNT convergence during the sliding motion phase by us-
ing a nonlinear function in the sliding surface and improving accuracy.
However, The TSM method exists the particular problems as follows:
singularity problems in the control law, slow convergence with initial
state greater than value 1, and chattering. The nonsingular terminal
sliding mode (NTSM) method was proposed to address the limited
points. As an illustration, Ref. Tran and Kang (2014) presents the
2
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373
integration of the NTSM method with FLS for the ML system, providing
disturbance rejection capabilities along with enhancements in dynamic
response and reduction of chattering.
Introducing FTC methods brings forth several benefits, including
enhanced convergence, improved reliability, and overall effectiveness
when dealing with nonlinear systems. These methods have been pri-
marily developed within the framework of SMC and backstepping
control theory. While several works have developed fixed-time SMC
(FTSMC) (Corradini and Cristofaro, 2018; Tian et al., 2020), others
have focused on developing fixed-time backstepping control (FTBC)
algorithms (Yuan et al., 2021; Mei et al., 2022). The FTSMC combines
the principles of SMC with the unique fixed-time convergence prop-
erty. SMC provides robustness and manages uncertainties, while the
fixed-time aspect ensures convergence within a specific timeframe. On
the other hand, FTBC extends the backstepping control approach by
introducing fixed-time convergence, guaranteeing controlled behavior
within a defined time span. Backstepping control involves a recursive
strategy that employs a series of Lyapunov functions to incrementally
stabilize the system. The incorporation of the fixed-time convergence
assures that the control process remains bounded within a designated
duration. Significantly, the implementation of FTSMC has proven effec-
tive in various applications. However, designing FTSMC for nonlinear
systems, including ML systems, introduces challenges similar to those
encountered in classic SMC. These challenges encompass the need
for information on the upper bounds of uncertain components or the
system dynamics.
The PP algorithm, a robust model-based control (MBC) for control
design with predefined PP purposes, has demonstrated advantages in
recent applications. PP method allows for precise control of system
performance by enabling the definition of specific performance crite-
ria, ensuring that the system meets those criteria. This is particularly
beneficial in applications with strict performance requirements. It also
enhances the robustness of a control system, allowing for effective
handling of disturbances and uncertainties. Chattering, a common is-
sue in SMC and similar methods, can be mitigated by PP method,
resulting in smoother control actions. This is particularly valuable in
practical applications where smooth control is desired. Furthermore,
PP method ensures good steady-state performance by maintaining per-
formance criteria even after convergence, a challenge in other control
strategies. However, the primary weakness of the PP algorithm lies
in its dependence on exact dynamical models to achieve the expected
objectives. Most methods in the existing literature use a single infinite
PP function to define the performance boundaries for the tracking
errors, leading to problems such as asymmetry of the tracking er-
rors, the inability to ensure fixed-time convergence of boundaries, and
issues related to singularity in the control input calculation. For exam-
ple, in Karayiannidis and Doulgeri (2012), a PP algorithm combined
with proportional-derivative (PD) control achieves asymptotic trajec-
tory tracking in an industrial robot. In Truong et al. (2022), prescribed
performance tracking-based SMC is applied to an ML system. Some
proposals have introduced finite-time prescribed performance (FNTPP)
functions or fixed-time prescribed performance (FTPP) functions to
achieve FNT/FT convergence of boundaries. For example, Wang et al.
(2021) introduces an FNTPP function and establishes a stable FNTPP
controller tailored for nonlinear systems, including robots. Addition-
ally, Zhao et al. (2017) presents a PP strategy specialized for FNT in
Euler–Lagrange systems. The approach in Cao et al. (2021) employs an
FTPP function to manage performance indices like convergence, over-
shoot, and steadiness for tracking error within a fixed time. However,
the remaining problems have not yet been thoroughly solved. There-
fore, addressing the challenges of PP algorithm remains an ongoing
task.
Due to limitations in the equipment’s hardware and constraints
within the software used in the working process, the system’s input is
typically capped at a maximum value. Achieving a swift convergence
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

rate demands a substantial control input at the system’s outset, poten- Table 1
Nomenclature.
tially leading to input saturation. This scenario poses risks of hardware
damage, undesired overshoot, and significant impacts on the system’s Description Notation

stability. Currently, two primary methods address the saturation issue: Real numbers and the set of 𝑛 × 𝑙 real matrices R and R𝑛×𝑙
The number of hidden nodes 𝑙
one involves the use of a smooth function to approximate the saturated
The width and central position of the Gaussian function D and 𝜎
control input (Chen et al., 2014; Shao et al., 2022), while the second The absolute value, the Euclidean norm, and Frobenius norm | ⋅ |, ‖ ⋅ ‖, and
technique requires the design of an auxiliary system to alleviate input ‖ ⋅ ‖𝐹
saturation (Esfandiari et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2016). Studies suggest Definition of Sig𝜚 (𝑦) and signum function |𝑦|𝜚 sign(𝑦)
that the latter technique is superior in addressing saturation compared and sign(⋅)
Definition of Exponential function exp(⋅)
to the former. However, it is crucial to note that the conventional The minimum eigenvalue 𝜆min (⋅)
auxiliary system may not guarantee convergence within a fixed time, Vector of NN inputs 𝑋
potentially adversely affecting the system’s tracking errors. Transpose Matrix of W W𝑇
Our objective is to develop a novel MFC strategy for UML systems, The function of the hidden nodes G(𝑋)
The estimation error in the optimal weights W ̃ =W−W ̂
considering the input saturation, uncertainties and external distur-
Time derivative of a variable( 𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑡
) 𝑦̇
bances that affect the system performance. Building upon prior research Gravitational acceleration and mass of the levitated sphere 𝑔 and 𝑚
in the field, the study with its contributions is highlighted as follows: Position of the levitated sphere and the desired trajectory 𝑦 and 𝑦𝑑
Equivalent resistance of the coil and number of turns in the 𝑅 and 𝑀
• Introducing a novel MFC for UML systems using NN that entirely coil
removes the necessity for a system model, a typical requirement Cross-section of the electromagnet and permeability 𝐴 and 𝜇0
in MBC approaches while reducing chattering; Current flowing in winding of the electromagnet 𝐼
Electromagnetic force and external disturbance 𝐹 and 𝑑(𝑡)
• The novel dual FTPP functions are introduced for UML control for
Electromechanical conversion coefficient 𝜆
the first time, offering advantages such as preventing singularity Control voltage and its saturation value 𝑈 and 𝑈sat
issues, adjustable bounds, and extending the operating domain at Maximum and minimum values of control voltage 𝑈max and 𝑈min
steady state compared to conventional PP functions. Additionally, Value of root-mean-square error 𝐸RMS
Settling time and its maximum value T and Tmax
these novel dual functions ensure symmetric SSTE boundaries,
Convergence time of PP function T𝑝
rapidly minimizing errors to zero in a fixed time; Initial value of a variable 𝑠10 = 𝑠1 (0)
• The TSM surface, FTAS, and fixed-time reaching law (FTRL) in
our design integrate power coefficients that dynamically adjust
according to the system states. This adaptive mechanism signif-
icantly accelerates the convergence rate of the system states, re-
gardless of whether their initial values are close to or distant from
the equilibrium point within a fixed time. Consequently, both
the convergence performance and accuracy undergo significant
improvement;
• A novel MFC method with fixed-time stabilization and a smoother
signal ensures a stable position for the levitated sphere and pro-
vides accurate tracking of various orbits, particularly under con-
ditions of uncertainties and input saturation;
• Experiments serve to validate the exceptional performance of the
proposed strategy;
• The proposed MFC method’s versatility is demonstrated by show-
casing its applicability in real-time scenarios and its potential Fig. 1. Description of a ML system.
utility in a variety of second-order nonlinear (SONL) systems.

The following sections are organized as: Section 2 introduces back-

ground information and problem formulations. Section 3 details the
control strategy design. Section 4 validates the proposed approach
through experiments, comparing its performance with existing control
schemes. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper, offering remarks and
summarizing key findings.
Nomenclature: Table 1 lists the nomenclature used in the article.
2. Preliminaries and problem formulations
Lemma 1 (Polyakov, 2011). Assuming the presence of a positive definite
continuous function 𝑉 () for the system described in Eq. (1), if the given
condition 𝑉̇ () ≤ −𝜗1 𝑉 𝜒 ()−𝜗2 𝑉 𝜐 () holds, where 𝜗1 > 0, 𝜗2 > 0, 𝜒 > 1,
and 0 < 𝜐 < 1, then the system defined by Eq. (1) is recognized globally
as exhibiting a fixed-time stability. Furthermore, the system’s convergence
time can be determined without dependence on initial conditions, using the
presented inequality:

1 1
2.1. Preliminaries T(0 ) ≤ + . (2)
𝜗1 (𝜒 − 1) 𝜗2 (1 − 𝜐)
A nonlinear system can be characterized as described in Ref.
Polyakov (2011): Lemma 2 (Zuo, 2015). For 𝑣𝑖 ≥ 0, 𝜘 > 1, and 0 < 𝛿 < 1, the following
𝑛
inequalities hold:
̇ = 𝑓 (𝑣(𝑡)),
𝑣(𝑡) 𝑣(𝑡0 ) = 𝑣0 , 𝑣∈R . (1)
( 𝑛 )𝜘
⎧ 1−𝜘 ∑ ∑ 𝑛
Here, 𝑓 (⋅) ∶ R𝑛 → R𝑛 represents a potentially discontinuous vector field. ≤ 𝑣𝜘𝑖
⎪𝑛 𝑣𝑖
The system described by Eq. (1) demonstrates a fixed-time convergence, ⎪ 𝑖=1 𝑖=1
which signifies its global FNT stability. This characteristic guarantees ⎨ ( 𝑛 )𝛿 . (3)
⎪ ∑ ∑𝑛
that the convergence time of the system remains bounded, irrespective 𝛿
⎪ 𝑣𝑖 ≤ 𝑣𝑖
of its initial states. In simpler terms, for any 𝑣0 ∈ R𝑛 , the condition ⎩ 𝑖=1 𝑖=1
T(𝑣0 ) ≤ Tmax holds true, where Tmax stands as a positive constant.

3
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

2.2. RBFNN Remark 1. It is important to highlight that the structure presented

in Eq. (8) is suitable for designing controllers (MBC methods) contin-
The use of an RBFNN allows for the accurate approximation of the gent on the accuracy of model parameters. Conversely, the configura-
unknown functions, as illustrated below: tion provided in Eq. (9) is specifically tailored for the design of MFC
methods, exemplified by the proposed MFC in this paper.
𝑓 (𝑋) = W𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 . (4)
Defining 𝑦̃1 = 𝑦𝑑 − 𝑦1 as the position error and 𝑦̃2 = 𝑦̇ 𝑑 − 𝑦2 as the
The W ∈ R𝑙×𝑛
signifies the optimal weight matrix. Additionally,
𝜖 ∈ R𝑛×1 denotes the approximation error, subject to the condition velocity error, respectively. Thus, Eq. (9) can be expressed as follows:
{
‖𝜖‖ ≤ 𝜖,
̄ where 𝜖̄ ≥ 0. The function G(𝑋) ( is selected as )the Gaussian 𝑦̃̇ 1 = 𝑦̃2
𝑇 . (10)
−(𝑋−𝜎𝑖 ) (𝑋−𝜎𝑖 )
function defined as follows: G(𝑋) = exp 2 , where 𝑖 = ̄ 𝜃,
𝑦̃̇ 2 = 𝑦̈𝑑 −  − 𝛯( ̄ 1 )𝑢
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) + (𝑦
D𝑖

1, 2, … , 𝑙. The selection of the Gaussian function for Eq. (4) is motivated Due to its inherent instability and strong nonlinearity, the parameter
by its balanced combination of approximation power, smoothness, system is time-varying and susceptible to unknown external distur-
localization, and computational efficiency, making it a preferred choice bances. Effectively maintaining and following the desired trajectory of
for RBFNN hidden nodes in various applications, including the one the levitated sphere poses significant challenges.
described in this paper.
2.4. PP method
2.3. System description
2.4.1. Conventional PP method review
In our paper, we focus on the ML system, which utilizes electromag- In previous studies (Karayiannidis and Doulgeri, 2012; Bechlioulis
netic force to suspend a metal sphere in mid-air. The system operates and Rovithakis, 2008; Jing et al., 2019; Sai et al., 2022), a single PP
( )
without any mechanical interaction between the sphere and the ML function is typically defined as 𝓁(𝑡) = 𝓁0 − 𝓁∞ exp (−𝜌𝑡) + 𝓁∞ , with 𝓁0 ,
system. 𝓁∞ , and 𝜌 being appropriately defined positive constants. This function
The setup of the ML system is depicted in Fig. 1. For a more is employed to establish performance boundaries for the tracking error,
comprehensive understanding of its structure, detailed information can ensuring that the tracking error remains within the bounds:
be accessed in the article (Yadav et al., 2018). {
Considering the effect of external disturbance, the ML system can −𝛿𝓁(𝑡) < 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) < 𝓁(𝑡), if 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)(0) > 0
be characterized by the following expression (Wang et al., 2020c): −𝓁(𝑡) < 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) < 𝛿𝓁(𝑡), if 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)(0) ≤ 0
⎧𝑚𝑦̈ = 𝑚𝑔 − 𝐹 (𝐼, 𝑦) + 𝑑(𝑡) where 0 < 𝛿 < 1.
⎪ ( )2
⎪ 𝜇 𝐴𝑀 2 However, using a single PP function to derive boundaries exhibits
𝐼
⎨𝐹 (𝐼, 𝑦) = 𝜆 , 𝜆= 0 . (5) certain drawbacks. Notably, the lower boundary becomes 𝛿 times
⎪ 𝑦 4
⎪𝑈 = 𝑅𝐼 + 𝐿𝐼̇ smaller than the upper boundary at steady-state conditions, leading
⎩ to a lack of symmetry about zero. This asymmetry can result in the
It is noted that the relationship between 𝐹 (𝐼, 𝑦) and its variables 𝐼 and phenomenon where, even with the converted error (CE) equating to
𝑦 is strongly nonlinear. zero, the tracking error deviates from zero. Additionally, the value of
The system (5) is equivalent to the PP function converges to 𝓁∞ as 𝑡 approaches infinity.
𝑑(𝑡) The tracking error is transformed using the basic error transforma-
𝜃 2 𝜃
𝑦̈ = 𝑔 − 𝑈 + (2𝑈 𝐿𝐼̇ − 𝐿2 𝐼̇2 ) + , (6) tion (ET) function:
𝑦2 𝑦2 𝑚
𝜆 ⎧ exp(𝑌̃1 )−𝛿 exp(−𝑌̃1 )
where 𝜃 = 𝑚𝑅 2. ⎪ exp(𝑌̃1 )+exp(−𝑌̃1 ) if 𝑦̃1 (0) > 0
While considering the system parameters-related error, Eq. (6) can T(𝑌̃1 ) = ⎨ , (11)
𝛿 exp(𝑌̃ )−exp(−𝑌̃ )
be reexpressed as: ⎪ exp(𝑌̃ 1)+exp(−𝑌̃ 1) if 𝑦̃1 (0) < 0
⎩ 1 1

𝜃0 (𝜃 − 𝜃0 ) 𝜃 𝑑(𝑡) where 𝑌̃1 represents a CE derived from 𝑦̃1 .

𝑦̈ = 𝑔 − 𝑈2 − 𝑈2 + (2𝑈 𝐿𝐼̇ − 𝐿2 𝐼̇2 ) + , (7)
𝑦2 𝑦2 𝑦2 𝑚 Based on Eq. (11), the CE is calculated by:
where 𝜃0 is the nominal value of the system parameter 𝜃. ( 𝑦̃ (𝑡) )
⎧1 1
𝛿+ 𝓁(𝑡)
Selecting 𝑈 as the control signal and introducing 𝑢 = 𝑈 2 , defining ⎪2 ln 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) if 𝑦̃1 (0) > 0
𝑦 as 𝑦1 and 𝑦̇ 1 as 𝑦2 , the state space equation for the UML system can ⎪ 1− 𝓁(𝑡)
𝑌̃1 = ⎨ ( 𝑦̃ (𝑡) ) . (12)
be expressed as: ⎪1 1
1+ 𝓁(𝑡)
{ ⎪ 2 ln 𝛿− 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) if 𝑦̃1 (0) < 0
𝑦̇ 1 = 𝑦2 ⎩ 𝓁(𝑡)
, (8)
𝑦̇ 2 =  − (𝑦1 )𝑢 + 𝛯(𝜃, 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) Based on Eq. (12), it is evident that when the CE 𝑌̃1 is 0, the tracking
(𝜃−𝜃 ) error{remains non-zero. In this case, the tracking error is given by
where  = 𝑔, 𝛯(𝜃0 , 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) = − 20 𝑈2 + 𝜃
(2𝑈 𝐿𝐼̇ − 𝐿2 𝐼̇2 ) + 𝑑(𝑡) , and (1−𝛿)𝓁(𝑡)
𝑦1 𝑦21 𝑚 if 𝑦̃1 (0) > 0
2
(𝑦1 ) =
𝜃0
. 𝑦̃1 = (𝛿−1)𝓁(𝑡)
with 𝓁(𝑡) > 0. In another scenario, if 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)
𝑦21 if 𝑦̃1 (0) < 0
2
To completely eliminate the requirement for exact values of 𝜃 or 𝜃0 ,
surpasses 𝓁(𝑡), it results in a negative argument inside the ln(⋅) function,
the system (8) can correspond to
{ causing the CE to become a complex number. With complex values,
𝑦̇ 1 = 𝑦2 computing the control signal becomes unfeasible, a problem known as
, (9)
̄ 1 )𝑢 + 𝛯(
𝑦̇ 2 =  − (𝑦 ̄ 𝜃,
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) singularity.

̄ 1) = 𝜃̄
where (𝑦 with 𝜃̄ as the designed control constant. 𝛯(
̄ 𝜃,
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) 2.4.2. The proposed FTPP method
𝑦21
̄ The objective of employing the PP technique in this paper is to
= − (𝜃−2𝜃) 𝑈 2 + 𝜃2 (2𝑈 𝐿𝐼̇ −𝐿2 𝐼̇2 )+ 𝑑(𝑡)
𝑚
̄ 1 ))𝑢
−((𝑦1 )− (𝑦 represents the total
𝑦1 𝑦1 ensure that the position error 𝑦̃1 remains within a newly fixed-time
disturbance, which consists of unknown internal dynamics, parameter predetermined range, as given by:
uncertainties, and external disturbance. It is constrained by a positive
constant 𝛥̄ ≥ ||𝛯( ̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡)|.
̄ 𝜃,
| − 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) < 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)sign(𝑦̃1 (0)) < 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) , (13)

4
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Fig. 2. Description of the fixed-time prescribed tracking error behavior.

in which 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) and 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) denote two anticipated accuracy boundaries for 𝑌̃1 = 0, and as 𝑌̃1 approaches positive and negative infinity, the limits
the tracking error. These boundaries are characterized by their smooth, are lim𝑌̃1 →+∞ T(𝑌̃1 ) = 1 and lim𝑌̃1 →−∞ T(𝑌̃1 ) = −1, respectively.
positive, and decreasing functions. Both of them converge towards a It is crucial to emphasize the consistent adherence to the condition
common limit, denoted as 𝓁∞ , as time approaches a fixed-time period −1 < T(𝑌̃ 1) < 1 and 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) > 0 holds true in all cases. We will consider
T𝑝 . It is also assumed that at the initial time, 0 < ||𝑦̃1 (0)|| < 𝓁𝑢 (0). two main scenarios: when 𝑦̃1 (0) > 0 and when 𝑦̃1 (0) < 0.
The fixed-time functions 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) and 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) are proposed as follows: Case 1. If 𝑦̃1 (0) > 0, then we have the inequality −𝓁(𝑡) < 𝓁(𝑡)T(𝑌̃1 ) <
⎧ ( )𝜅 𝓁(𝑡). Referring to Eq. (15), when 𝑦̃1 > 0, 𝓁(𝑡) = 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡), and when 𝑦̃1 < 0,
⎧ 𝑡
⎪ ⎪(𝓁0 − 𝓁∞ ) 1 − + 𝓁∞ , 0 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ T𝑝 , 𝓁(𝑡) = 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡). Consequently, we obtain:
⎪𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) = ⎨ T𝑝
⎪ ⎪𝓁 ,
⎪ ⎩ ∞ 𝑡 > T𝑝 , − 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) < 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) < 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) . (16)
⎨ ( )𝜅 (14)
⎪ ⎧ 𝑡
⎪ 𝓁 (𝑡) = ⎪(𝓁1 − 𝓁∞ ) 1 − + 𝓁∞ , 0 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ T𝑝 , Case 2. If 𝑦̃1 (0) < 0, we again have the inequality −𝓁(𝑡) < 𝓁(𝑡)T(𝑌̃1 ) <
⎨ T𝑝
⎪ 𝑙 𝓁(𝑡). As per Eq. (15), when 𝑦̃1 > 0, 𝓁(𝑡) = 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡), and when 𝑦̃1 < 0,
⎪ ⎪𝓁 , 𝑡 > T𝑝 .
⎩ ⎩ ∞ 𝓁(𝑡) = 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡). This leads to:

− 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) < 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) < 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) . (17)

Remark 2. With the suggested functions, after a fixed-time period
T𝑝 , the precision of 𝑦̃1 (𝑡) can reach the minimum value 𝓁∞ . The con-
vergence speed of 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) will determine the convergence speed of 𝑦̃1 (𝑡),
while still ensuring that the maximum overshoot does not exceed 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡).
The design parameters must satisfy the following conditions: 𝓁0 ≥ 𝓁1 >
𝓁∞ > 0 and 𝜅 > 2. In summary, the novel FTPP functions not only
build upon the advantages of previous studies but also enhance them by
achieving specified performance goals within a fixed-time frame (T𝑝 ).
By combining the results from both cases, we are able to derive
Eq. (13), which means that the desired tracking error behavior can be
achieved during both transient and steady-state scenarios.
3. Synthesis of the control system design
3.1. Error transformation

Fig. 2 displays the boundaries containing the tracking errors. By In our study, the proposed FTPP method effectively addresses and
establishing different fixed-time periods of T𝑝 , such as T𝑝 = 1.5 second resolves the singularity problem by incorporating an arctan(⋅) function
or T𝑝 = 3 seconds as respectively shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), we into the ET function. Therefore, the ET function is designed as:
can ensure the convergence of these boundaries within a predeter-
2
mined time frame. This adjustment significantly enhances overshoot T(𝑌̃1 ) = arctan(𝑌̃1 ) . (18)
𝜋
management, contributing to more effective control.
The equations for 𝑌̃1 and its derivative, derived from Eqs. (15) and
Proposing the ET function as:
(18), are represented as follows:
⎧𝑦̃1 (𝑡) = 𝓁(𝑡)T(𝑌̃1 ) ( )
⎪ { ( ) ⎧ 𝜋 𝑦̃1
⎨ 𝓁𝑢 (𝑡) if sign 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)𝑦̃1 (0) ≥ 0 , (15) ⎪𝑌̃1 = tan
⎨ 2𝓁(𝑡) , (19)
⎪ 𝓁(𝑡) = ( )
⎩ 𝓁𝑙 (𝑡) if sign 𝑦̃1 (𝑡)𝑦̃1 (0) < 0 ⎪𝑌̃̇ = C (𝑦̃̇ − ℘)
⎩ 1 1

where T(𝑌̃1 ) is a smooth and monotonically increasing ET function, ( )

𝜋 1+𝑌̃12 ̇
2𝓁(𝑡)
adhering to the conditions −1 < T(𝑌̃1 ) < 1. Moreover, T(𝑌̃1 ) = 0 when where C = 2𝓁(𝑡)
> 0 and ℘ = 𝜋
arctan(𝑌̃1 ).

5
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Let 𝑌̃2 = 𝑦̃̇ 1 − ℘. Thus, Eq. (19) can be reexpressed as: where 𝜅3 = 𝜆min (𝜓3 )2𝑎3 and 𝜅4 = 𝜆min (𝜓4 )2𝑎4 .
{ Eq. (25) aligns with Lemma 1, signifying that the system (25)
𝑌̃̇ 1 = C𝑌̃2
, (20) converges to zero within a FNT. This FNT stability is characterized
𝑌̃̇ 2 = 𝑦̃̈1 −  by a specific settling time, denoted as T(𝛼0 ) < Tmax . The settling time
( )
2 𝑌̃̇ 1
1
depends on the expression 𝜅 (𝑎1 −1) + 𝜅 (1−𝑎 .
where  = ℘̇ = ̈ arctan(𝑌̃1 ) + 𝓁(𝑡)
𝓁(𝑡) ̇ . 3 3 ) 4 4
𝜋 1+𝑌̃ 2
1

3.2. Fixed-time auxiliary dynamic system in considering input saturation 3.3. Design of the TSM surface

There are two methods addressing saturation: approximating satu-

Utilizing the dynamics described in Eq. (23), the TSM surface is
rated control input with a smooth function or designing an auxiliary
constructed as shown below:
system. Recent research favors the latter due to its superior saturation
handling. However, traditional auxiliary systems may lack fixed-time  = 𝑠2 + 𝜂1 Sig𝜌1 (𝑠1 ) + 𝜂2 Sig𝜌2 (𝑠1 ) , (26)
convergence, affecting tracking errors. The proposed FTAS, inspired by
sign(|𝑠1 |−1) sign(1−|𝑠1 |)
studies (Esfandiari et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2016), effectively mitigates where 𝜂1 , 𝜂2 > 0, 𝜌1 = 𝑏1 , 𝑏1 > 1, 𝜌2 = 𝑏2 , and
1
saturation’s impact, as follows: 2
< 𝑏2 < 1.
Once  = 0, we can derive the following expression:
𝛼̇ = −̄ 𝑢sign(𝛼)
̄ − 𝜓3 Sig2𝜛3 −1 (𝛼) − 𝜓4 Sig2𝜛4 −1 (𝛼) + 𝛥𝑢
̄ . (21)
( )
Here, 𝜓3 and 𝜓4 are constants, and the parameters 𝜛3 and 𝜛4 are 𝑠̇ 1 = C −𝜂1 Sig𝜌1 (𝑠1 ) − 𝜂2 Sig𝜌2 (𝑠1 ) + 𝛼 . (27)
sign(|𝛼|−1) sign(1−|𝛼|)
expressed as 𝜛3 = 𝑎3 and 𝜛4 = 𝑎4 . The values of 𝑎3
1 Based on the proof result of Theorem 1, 𝛼 is a fixed-time stable,
and 𝑎4 adhere to the conditions 𝑎3 > 1 and 2 < 𝑎4 < 1. Additionally, 𝛥𝑢
is defined as 𝛥𝑢 = 𝑢sat − 𝑢 and ‖𝛥𝑢‖ ≤ 𝑢.̄ The saturation function 𝑢sat is meaning 𝛼 = 0 will be achieved within a fixed time. Therefore, dynamic
defined as: (27) can be expressed as:
( )
⎧𝑢max if 𝑢 ≥ 𝑢max , 𝑠̇ 1 = C −𝜂1 Sig𝜌1 (𝑠1 ) − 𝜂2 Sig𝜌2 (𝑠1 ) . (28)
⎪
𝑢sat = ⎨𝑢 if 𝑢min < 𝑢 < 𝑢max , (22)
⎪ Theorem 2. Taking into account the dynamics (28), the origin, repre-
⎩𝑢min if 𝑢 < 𝑢min ,
sented as 𝑠1 = 0, serves as a globally FNT stable equilibrium point, and the
where 𝑢max > 0 and 𝑢min < 0.
state trajectory of the system (28) converges to zero within a fixed time.
By introducing the variables 𝑠1 = 𝑌̃1 and 𝑠2 = 𝑌̃2 −𝛼, and considering
the system (21), the system (20) can be recast as follows:
Proof of Theorem 2. Considering the Lyapunov function 𝐿2 = 21 𝑠21 , its
⎧𝑠̇ 1 = C(𝑠2 + 𝛼) time derivative is given by:
⎪ ̄ 𝜃, ̄ sat − 
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) + 𝑢
⎨𝑠̇ 2 = 𝑦̈𝑑 −  − 𝛯( . (23) 𝐿̇ 2 = 𝑠1 𝑠̇ 1
⎪ ( )
⎩ + ̄ 𝑢sign(𝛼)
̄ + 𝜓3 Sig 3 (𝛼) + 𝜓4 Sig2𝜛4 −1 (𝛼) − 𝛥𝑢
2𝜛 −1 ̄ = C𝑠1 −𝜂1 Sig𝜌1 (𝑠1 ) − 𝜂2 Sig𝜌2 (𝑠1 )
= −𝜂1 C|𝑠1 | 1 − 𝜂2 C|𝑠1 | 2
𝜌 +1 𝜌 +1
, (29)
Theorem 1. Considering the system (21), the origin, represented as 𝛼 = 0, ≤ −1 |𝑠1 |𝜌1 +1 − 2 |𝑠1 |𝜌2 +1
serves as a globally FNT stable equilibrium point, and the state of the system ( ) 𝜌1 +1 ( ) 𝜌2 +1
= −1 |𝑠1 |2 2 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2
(21) converges to zero within a fixed time.
where 1 = 𝜂1 Cmin , 2 = 𝜂2 Cmin , and Cmin = 2𝓁𝜋 .
0
1 2
Proof of Theorem 1. Considering the Lyapunov function 𝐿1 = 𝛼 , Applying a similar analysis method as in Theorem 1, we derive the
2
its time derivative is given by: following results:
1
𝐿̇ 1 = −̄ 𝑢‖𝛼‖
̄ − 𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝜛3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2𝜛4 + 𝛥𝑢𝛼
̄ Case 1. For |𝑠1 | ≥ 1, 𝜌1 = 𝑏1 > 1 and 𝜌2 = > 1. This leads to
𝑏2
̄
≤ (𝛥𝑢 − 𝑢)‖𝛼‖
̄ − 𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝜛3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2𝜛4 . (24) 1
( ) 𝑏1 +1 ( ) 1 ( ) 𝑏1 +1 𝑏2
≤ −𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝜛3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2𝜛4 the inequality −1 |𝑠1|2 2 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2 ≤ −1 |𝑠1 |2 2 − +

( ) 2
𝑏 +1 ( )𝑐 ( )𝑐 𝑏 +1
Let us examine two cases: 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2 = −1 |𝑠1|2 1 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2 , with 𝑐1 = 12 and
𝑏2 +1
Case 1. When |𝛼| ≥ 1, 𝜛3 = 𝑎3 > 1 and 𝜛4 = 𝑎1 > 1, we have: 𝑐2 = 2
.
4
2 1 ( )𝑎 ( )1 1
−𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝜛3 −𝜓4 |𝛼|2𝜛4 = −𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝑎3 −𝜓4 |𝛼| 𝑎4 = −𝜓3 |𝛼|2 3 −𝜓4 |𝛼|2 𝑎4 . Case 2. When |𝑠1 | < 1, 𝜌1 = 𝑏1
< 1 and 𝜌2 = 𝑏2 < 1. This implies
( )1 ( )𝑎 1
As |𝛼|2 > 1 and 𝑎1 > 1 > 𝑎4 , we find that |𝛼|2 𝑎4 > |𝛼|2 4 . Therefore, ( ) 1 𝑏1 ( ) 𝑏2 +1 ( ) 𝑏1 +1 ( ) 𝑏2 +1
4 −1 |𝑠1 |2 2 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2
+ ≤ −1 |𝑠1 |2 2 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2 =
2
( )𝑎 ( )1 ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎 ( ) 𝑐 ( ) 𝑐
−𝜓3 |𝛼|2 3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2 𝑎4 ≤ −𝜓3 |𝛼|2 3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2 4 . −1 |𝑠1|2 1 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 2 .
1 Based on the results from both above cases, we obtain:
Case 2. When |𝛼| < 1, 𝜛3 = < 1 and 𝜛4 = 𝑎4 < 1, we have
𝑎3 ( ) ( )
2 𝑎1 ( )1 ( )𝑎 ̇𝐿2 = −1 |𝑠1 |2 𝑐1 − 2 | |𝑠1 |2 𝑐2
−𝜓3 |𝛼|2𝜛3 −𝜓2 |𝛼|2𝜛4 = −𝜓3 |𝛼| −𝜓4 |𝛼|2𝑎4 = −𝜓1 |𝛼|2 𝑎3 −𝜓4 |𝛼|2 4 .
3 ( )𝑐1 ( )𝑐2
( ) 1 ( )𝑎 ≤ −𝜆min (1 )2𝑐1 21 𝑠21 − 𝜆min (2 )2𝑐2 12 𝑠21 , (30)
Since |𝛼|2 < 1 and 𝑎1 < 1 < 𝑎3 , we find that |𝛼|2 𝑎3 > |𝛼|2 3 .
3 = −𝜙1 (𝐿2 )𝑐1 − 𝜙2 (𝐿2 )𝑐2
( ) 1 ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎
Therefore, −𝜓3 |𝛼|2 𝑎3 − 𝜓2 |𝛼|2 4 ≤ −𝜓3 |𝛼|2 3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2 4 . where 𝜙1 = 𝜆min (1 )2𝑐1 and 𝜙2 = 𝜆min (2 )2𝑐2 .
Combining the results from both of the above cases, we can deduce:
Considering Eq. (28) aligns with Lemma 1, the TSM surface intro-
( )𝑎 ( )𝑎 duced in Eq. (26) exhibits identical convergence properties. Hence, it is
𝐿̇ 1 ≤ −𝜓3 |𝛼|2 3 − 𝜓4 |𝛼|2 4 established as a fixed-time stable, with a specific settling time denoted
( )𝑎3 ( )𝑎4
≤ −𝜆min (𝜓3 )2𝑎3 12 𝛼 2 − 𝜆min (𝜓4 )2𝑎4 12 𝛼 2 , (25) by T(𝑠10 ) < Tmax . The settling time is determined by the expression
1 1
= −𝜅3 (𝐿1 )𝑎3 − 𝜅4 (𝐿1 )𝑎4 𝜙 (𝑐 −1)
+ 𝜙 (1−𝑐 )
.
1 1 2 2

6
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

3.4. MFC design Proof of Theorem 3. Considering Eqs. (32) to (34) collectively, we
derive:
Differentiating TSM surface according to time (26) results in: ̇ = −𝑓̂(𝑋) + 𝑓𝑢 − (𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄)sign() − 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 () − 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 ()
.
̇ = 𝑦̈𝑑 −  − 𝛯(
̄ 𝜃, ̄ sat − 𝛥𝑢
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) + 𝑢 ̄ −  + ̄ 𝑢sign(𝛼)
̄ =W̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 − (𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄)sign() − 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 () − 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 ()
𝜌 −1 𝜌 −1
+ 𝜓3 Sig2𝜛3 −1 (𝛼) + 𝜓4 Sig2𝜛4 −1 (𝛼) + 𝜂1 𝜌1 𝑠11 𝑠̇ 1 + 𝜂2 𝜌2 𝑠12 𝑠̇ 1 . (36)
(31) 1 2 1 ∑𝑛 ̃𝑇 ̃
Using the Lyapunov function 𝑉1 = 2
 + 2𝐾
and apply- 𝑖=1 W𝑖 W𝑖 ,
ing the update law (35) and Eq. (36), we can compute the derivative
Eq. (31) can be expressed as:
of the Lyapunov function, resulting in:
̇ = 𝑢
̄ + 𝑓𝑘 + 𝑓𝑢 , (32) ∑ ̂̇ 𝑖
𝑉̇ 1 =  ̇ − 𝐾 𝑛𝑖=1 W̃ 𝑇W
𝑖
2𝜛3 −1 2𝜛4 −1
where the term 𝑓𝑘 = 𝑦̈𝑑 −−+̄ 𝑢sign(𝛼)+𝜓
̄ 3 Sig (𝛼)+𝜓4 Sig (𝛼) = W ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 − 𝜖‖‖
̄ − 𝜄̄‖‖
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) + 𝜂1 𝜌1 𝑠𝜌1 −1 𝑠̇ 1 + 𝜂2 𝜌2 𝑠𝜌2 −1 𝑠̇ 1
̄ 𝜃,
is easily identified, and 𝑓𝑢 = −𝛯( 1 1 ∑
𝑛 . (37)
represents the sum of unknown uncertain components and terms that − 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 () − 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 () − ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋)
W 𝑖
can introduce singularity. 𝑖=1

Based on Eq. (32), the MFC is formulated for the system (10) as ≤ −̄𝜄‖‖ − 𝜓1 ||2𝜛1 − 𝜓2 ||2𝜛2
follows: By mirroring the proof laid out in Theorem 1, we reach the follow-
( ) ing conclusions:
𝑢 = −̄ −1 𝑢𝑒𝑞 + 𝑢𝑟 . (33)
Case 1. In the scenario where || ≥ 1, we observe 𝜛1 = 𝑎1 > 1 and
Here, 𝑢𝑒𝑞 and 𝑢𝑟 are formed as: ( )𝑎 ( )1 ( )𝑎
{ 𝜛2 = 𝑎1 > 1. As a result, −𝜓1 ||2 1 − 𝜓2 ||2 𝑎2 ≤ −𝜓1 ||2 1 −
𝑢𝑒𝑞 = 𝑓𝑘 + 𝑓̂(𝑋) ( 22)𝑎2
, (34) 𝜓2 || .
𝑢𝑟 = (𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄)sign() + 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 () + 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 ()
Case 2. When || < 1, 𝜛1 = 𝑎1 < 1 and 𝜛2 = 𝑎2 < 1. Consequently,
where 𝜓1 , 𝜓2 , and 𝜄̄ are positive constants, while the parameters 𝜛1 and 1
sign(||−1) sign(1−||) ( )1 ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎
𝜛2 are defined as 𝜛1 = 𝑎1 and 𝜛2 = 𝑎2 . The values of −𝜓1 ||2 𝑎1 − 𝜓2 ||2 2 ≤ −𝜓1 ||2 1 − 𝜓2 ||2 2 .
1 Combining both cases, Inequality (37) can be expressed as follows:
𝑎1 and 𝑎2 satisfy the conditions 𝑎1 > 1 and 2 < 𝑎2 < 1.
In the design process, we employ an RBFNN to approximate the ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎
𝑉̇ 1 ≤ −̄𝜄‖‖ − 𝜓1 ||2 1 − 𝜓2 ||2 2 . (38)
unknown function 𝑓𝑢 . The estimated value of 𝑓𝑢 , denoted as 𝑓̂(𝑋) =
Ŵ 𝑇 G(𝑋) ∈ R1×1 and obtained as the output of the RBFNN, is used, with The evidence provided by Inequality (38) demonstrates that the con-
the NN inputs selected as 𝑋 = [𝑠1 , 𝑠2 , 𝑦𝑑 , 𝑦̇ 𝑑 , 𝑦̈𝑑 ] ∈ R5×1 . Consequently, trol system indeed achieves asymptotic stability. Furthermore, since the
the estimation error is defined as 𝑓̃(𝑋) = 𝑓𝑢 − 𝑓̂(𝑋). Therefore, we can ̃ ≤ 0, this implies
time derivative of the Lyapunov function 𝑉̇ 1 ((𝑡), W)
express 𝑓𝑢 − 𝑓̂(𝑋) = W ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖. Assuming that the term W ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) is ̃ ≤ 𝑉1 ((0), W).
that the Lyapunov function itself satisfies 𝑉1 ((𝑡), W) ̃
̃
bounded by a positive constant denoted as 𝜄̄, such that ‖W G(𝑋)‖𝐹 ≤ 𝜄̄. 𝑇 Consequently, both (𝑡) and W ̃ are guaranteed to be bounded.
( )𝑎 ( )𝑎
The updating rules for the NN are constructed as follows: Let us define 𝛶 = 𝜄̄‖‖ + 𝜓1 ||2 1 + 𝜓2 ||2 2 ≤ −𝑉̇ 1 . Integrating
𝛶 over time yields the below inequality:
̂̇ 𝑖 = 𝐾 −1 G(𝑋)
W , (35) 𝑡
̃ − 𝑉1 ((𝑡), W)
𝛶 (𝑡)𝑑𝑡 ≤𝑉1 (0) − 𝑉1 (𝑡) = 𝑉1 ((0), W) ̃ . (39)
̂ 𝑖 represents the 𝑖th element of the
where constant 𝐾 is positive and W ∫0
matrix W. The boundedness of 𝑉1 ((0), W) ̃ and the fact that 𝑉1 ((𝑡), W)
̃ is a
bounded and decreasing function ensure the boundedness of , W ̃ 𝑖, 𝑖 =
Remark 3. The utilization of (𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄)sign() in Eqs. (33) and (34) 1, … , 𝑛. As  depends on 𝑠1 and 𝑠2 , it also guarantees the boundedness
to handle the term W ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 from the NN may potentially induce of the tracking error.
chattering behavior in the control input. However, we have mitigated To affirm the global fixed-time stability of the system, a Lyapunov
this issue by leveraging the accurate approximation provided by the function in the form of 𝑉2 = 21  2 is chosen. As a result, its time
NN for the term 𝑓𝑢 . This accurate approximation ensures that the sum derivative can be derived as follows:
̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 remains small value, thereby requiring only small values
W 𝑉̇ 2 =  ̇ (
of 𝜖̄ and 𝜄̄ to compensate for it. Consequently, this results in reduced ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 − (𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄)sign() − 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 ()
= W
chattering compared to traditional SMC and FTSMC methods. )
− 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 () . (40)
Remark 4. To apply a practical control voltage signal to the UML
√ = W̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋) + 𝜖 − 𝜖‖‖
̄ − 𝜄̄‖‖ − 𝜓1 Sig2𝜛1 −1 ()
system, we use the conversion 𝑈 = 𝑢. − 𝜓2 Sig2𝜛2 −1 ()
The Gaussian function mentioned earlier is bounded between 0 and
Remark 5. The MFC method in Eq. (33) not only addresses the effect 1, as indicated by 0 ≤ G(𝑋) ≤ 1. This constraint leads to the bound
√
of input saturation but also eliminates the need for prior knowledge of ‖G(𝑋)‖ ≤ 𝑙. Furthermore, by utilizing the properties of the Frobenius
the exact values of 𝛯(̄ 𝜃,
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡) or 𝜃, which are typically unavailable ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋)‖𝐹 ≤ ‖W ̃ 𝑇 ‖𝐹 ‖G(𝑋)‖. As a
norm, it becomes evident that ‖W
and strongly nonlinear in practical scenarios. Additionally, the method result, the assumption ‖W ̃ 𝑇 G(𝑋)‖𝐹 ≤ 𝜄̄ is satisfied, allowing us to
tackles
( singularity issues that ) may arise due to the inclusion of the conclude:
𝜌 −1 𝜌 −1
term 𝜂1 𝜌1 𝑠11 𝑠̇ 1 + 𝜂2 𝜌2 𝑠12 𝑠̇ 1 in the control law when 𝑠̇ 1 ≠ 0 and
𝑉̇ 2 ≤ −𝜓1 ||2𝜛1 − 𝜓2 ||2𝜛2
𝑠1 = 0. The effectiveness of the method will be fully verified through ( )𝑎 ( )𝑎
the experiments conducted in the experimental section. ≤ −𝜓1 ||2 1 − 𝜓2 ||2 2
( )𝑎1 ( )𝑎 2 , (41)
≤ −𝜆min (𝜓1 )2𝑎1 12  2 − 𝜆min (𝜓2 )2𝑎2 12  2
Theorem 3. The constructed MFC system (33) guarantees a fixed-time
= −𝜅1 (𝑉2 )𝑎1 − 𝜅2 (𝑉2 )𝑎2
stability for UML systems, even in the presence of input saturation and
uncertain terms, ensuring prescribed performance. where 𝜅1 = 𝜆min (𝜓1 )2𝑎1 and 𝜅2 = 𝜆min (𝜓2 )2𝑎2 .

7
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Fig. 3. The graph of the proposed MFC system.

Fig. 4. Setup of experimental platform.

Table 2 Table 3
Parameters of a laboratory ML system. Components and the control programming for experiment.
Parameters Value Unit Component Control programming
𝜃0 0.00136487 N m2 ∕kg V2 Feedback model 33–210 MATLAB/Simulink
𝑅 0.95238 Ω Feedback model 33–301 Real-time workshop
𝜆 2.48315625 × 10−5 N m2 /A2 PCI1711 I/O Card Microsoft visual C++ professional
𝑚 0.02 kg Feedback SCSI adapter box Control toolbox
𝑔 9.81 m/s2 SCSI cable Real-time windows target

Since the result in Eq. (41) corresponds with Lemma 1, the proposed The sampling time is 1 × 10−3 s. Additionally, we consider 𝑑(𝑡) =
control system is thereby confirmed as a fixed-time stable. Conse- 0.04 sin(𝑡). The sphere was initially positioned at a specific location
quently, the TSM surface  = 0 can be reached from any initial and then followed a predefined trajectory. The two different desired
condition within a bounded time T(0 ) < Tmax = 𝜅 (𝑎1 −1) + 𝜅 (1−𝑎
1
)
. trajectories are represented as follows:
1 1 2 2

The scheme of the developed MFC is illustrated in Fig. 3. 1. A sinusoidal trajectory defined as 𝑦𝑑 = 15 + 3 sin (0.2𝜋𝑡) (mm).
2. A rest-to-rest trajectory with a lower value of 12 (mm) and an
4. Effectiveness verification upper value of 17 (mm).

Some typical methods selected for experiment comparison with the

4.1. General configuration proposed controller include PID controller, SMC, and FTSMC.
The control signal of the PID controller is formulated as follows:
Experiments conducted on a laboratory ML system illustrate the
improvements achieved with the developed MFC. The ML system is 𝑢 = 𝐺𝑃 𝑦̃1 + 𝐺𝐼 𝑦̃1 + 𝐺𝐷 𝑦̃̇ 1 , (42)
∫
established based on the guidelines provided in Truong et al. (2022)
where 𝐺𝑃 , 𝐺𝐼 , 𝐺𝐷 are the control gains.
and Morales et al. (2010). The system parameters considered for the
The control signal of the SMC is given by:
verification process can be found in Table 2 (Shieh et al., 2010). It
should be emphasized that the system parameters are solely employed 𝑦2 ( )
𝑢=− 𝑦̈ −  + 𝐺𝑠 𝑦̃̇ 1 + 𝐺𝑟  + (𝛥̄ + 𝜀)sign() , (43)
for the controllers that are part of the comparison, and they are not 𝜃0 𝑑
required for the proposed MFC. where  = 𝑦̃̇ 1 + 𝐺𝑠 𝑦̃1 represents a linear SM surface with 𝐺𝑠 > 0, and 𝜀
The system setup, provided by Feedback Instrument, is illustrated and 𝐺𝑟 are positive constants.
in Fig. 4. Details regarding the components and control programming A FTSMC, as described in Zuo (2015), is designed for an ML system
for the experiment are outlined in Table 3. For precise installation with the following control signal equation:
instructions for this system, readers can refer to the source (Truong 𝑦2 ( ( )
𝑦̈ −  + 𝜂3 𝜌3 ||𝑦̃1 || 3 + 𝜂4 𝜌4 ||𝑦̃1 || 4
𝜌 −1 𝜌 −1 ̇
et al., 2022). 𝑢=− 𝑦̃1 + 𝐺𝑟 
𝜃0 𝑑

8
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Table 4 Table 5
The parameters for all designed controllers used in both experiments. 𝐸RMS using the four separate controllers in Experiment 1.
Control Design Value Method 𝐸RMS 𝐸RMS
method parameter (sinusoidal orbit case) (rest-to-rest orbit case)
PID 𝐺𝑃 , 𝐺𝐼 , 𝐺𝐷 300, 100, 10 PID 1.0 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−3
SMC 𝐺𝑠 , 𝐺𝑟 , 𝛥̄ + 𝜀 20, 30, 4.1 SMC 5.4323 × 10−4 7.2076 × 10−4
FTSMC 4.9828 × 10−4 6.2966 × 10−4
FTSMC 𝐺𝑟 , 𝛥̄ + 𝜀 30, 4.1 Proposed MFC 1.4773 × 10−4 1.3573 × 10−4
𝜂3 , 𝜂4 , 𝜌3 , 𝜌4 5, 15, 1.1, 0.9
Proposed 𝓁0 , 𝓁1 , 𝓁∞ , 𝜅, T𝑝 0.020, 0.004, 0.0012, 3, 1.4 s
MFC ̄ 𝜂1 , 𝜂2 , 𝑏1 , 𝑏2
𝜃, 0.001, 0.04, 0.04, 1.1, 0.9
𝜓1 , 𝜓2 , 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝜖̄ + 𝜄̄ 15, 10, 1.1, 0.9, 0.1 4.2. Results of Experiment 1 and discussion
𝜓3 , 𝜓4 , 𝑎3 , 𝑎4 , 𝑢̄ 3, 3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.001
𝜎, 𝑙, D, 𝐾 0.01 ×
⎡ −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 ⎤ In the comparison of the PID, SMC, FTSMC, and proposed MFC,
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ their actual control performance was assessed to determine the most ef-
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 ⎦ fective controller. Performance metrics such as settling time, overshoot,
1
∈ R7×5 , 7, 5, 9 SSTE, and robustness were considered. These metrics provide insights
into how quickly the system reaches a steady-state, the control accu-
racy, the long-term tracking performance, and the controller’s ability
)
+(𝛥̄ + 𝜀)sign() . (44) to handle uncertainties and disturbances. By analyzing the performance
of each controller using these metrics, the optimal control strategy can
( )𝜌 ( )𝜌
Here,  = 𝑦̃̇ 1 + 𝜂3 Sig 𝑦̃1 3 + 𝜂4 Sig 𝑦̃1 4 represents a TSM surface with be identified.
𝜂3 and 𝜂4 denoting positive constants, where 𝜌3 > 1 and 0 < 𝜌4 < 1. Observing Fig. 5, it is apparent that all four controllers can ef-
fectively manage the ML system while tracking different predefined
Remark 6. In Eqs. (43) and (44), the SMC and FTSMC utilize (𝛥̄ + trajectories. However, discernible differences in control performance
𝜀)sign() to handle the total disturbance 𝛯( ̄ 𝜃,
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡), which is not become quite evident. The PID controller exhibits the largest trajectory
easy to know in practice. Here, 𝛥̄ represents the bound value of the total deviation of the levitated sphere from the desired trajectory. The SMC
disturbance 𝛯(̄ 𝜃,
̄ 𝐼, 𝑦1 , 𝑑, 𝑡), and 𝜀 is a small positive constant selected to and FTSMC perform better than the PID controller, resulting in a
satisfy the stability condition according to Lyapunov theory. The use smaller trajectory deviation. Especially, the proposed MFC achieves the
of the discontinuous term (𝛥̄ + 𝜀)sign() in these two methods induces smallest trajectory deviation among the four methods.
significantly greater chattering behavior in the control input compared To delve into these distinctions, let us carefully examine the zoomed
to the proposed method. sections in 5(a), 5(b), Fig. 6, and Table 5 to gain more detailed insights.
Although it is natural for MBCs to provide faster convergence than
Remark 7. In the equation for FTSMC, the negative power term MFCs, these close-ups underscore that, under the same input constraint
𝜂4 𝜌4 ||𝑦̃1 || 4 𝑦̃̇ 1 in the equation can lead to singularities if 𝑦̃1 = 0 and
𝜌 −1 conditions, the proposed MFC stands out by ensuring the swiftest
𝑦̃̇ 1 ≠ 0. This is a known issue in control theory. To address it, previous convergence of the system state during the reaching phase. Observing
Fig. 6, it is evident that the proposed MFC outperforms the compared
research has proposed solutions such as introducing a saturation func-
methods in metrics, including convergence time, maximum overshoot,
tion (Feng et al., 2013). This approach ensures stability and prevents
and SSTE when it alone satisfies all these metrics. The proposed MFC
singularities in the control input.
demonstrates superior performance by achieving faster convergence,
The parameters for all designed controllers were selected based on the smallest SSTE, and the smallest maximum overshoot within the
Table 4. PP bounds. The performance metrics can be managed effectively by
All methods will be consistently tested with the established general appropriately tuning the parameters of the PP functions within pre-
configurations in two specific experiments, ensuring a fair comparison, determined bounds. Although SMC and FTSMC seem to satisfy time
simplicity, and practical applicability. convergence as well as provide qualified accuracy, both methods fail to
satisfy the remaining metrics, as seen in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b). In contrast,
Experiment 1. Using a saturation function, we constrain the upper the PID controller performs the poorest, exhibiting the slowest conver-
limit of the control input to 4 V (𝑈max = 4 V) and the lower limit to gence, largest tracking error, and largest maximum overshoot, failing to
−4 V (𝑈min = −4 V) to express the effects of input saturation. meet the predefined operational requirements. The PID controller fails
to satisfy all metrics, indicating its inability to adequately manage the
maximum overshoot and the SSTE of the levitated sphere.
Experiment 2. We constrain the upper limit of the control input to
The proposed control method, leveraging the robust characteris-
3 V (𝑈max = 3 V) and the lower limit to −3 V (𝑈min = −3 V).
tics of both SMC and PP methods combined with RBFNN, not only
It is worth noting that the controller hardware is configured to ensures better robustness against time-varying uncertainties but also
operate within the range of 5V to −5V. The constraints in the two maintains high accuracy while operating stably within a predetermined
experiments are set to assess the impact of input saturation. range. While PID boasts a simple design that does not necessitate com-
To assess control precision, we compute the root-mean-square plex calculations in the design model, it lacks robustness in handling
(RMS) error using the following formula: time-varying uncertainties. On the other hand, both SMC and FTSMC
√ can exhibit robustness against these uncertainties, but their control
√
√1 ∑ 𝑁 performance heavily relies on precise model computations.
𝐸RMS = √ (𝑦 − 𝑦𝑖 )2 , (45) The issue of the control oscillations are observed in four algorithms.
𝑁 𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖
Even a linear controller like PID exhibits oscillatory behavior, partly
where 𝑁 represents the number of samples considered for the cal- because of sensor noise influences as well as the attraction and release
culation, and 𝑦𝑑𝑖 and 𝑦𝑖 denote the desired and actual trajectories, properties of magnets in controlling the sphere. However, the devel-
respectively, at the time index 𝑖. oped MFC effectively mitigates oscillations by utilizing the accurate
The 𝐸RMS is specifically evaluated during the post-convergence information provided by the RBFNN and employing a smaller sliding
phase, spanning from the 3rd to the 30th second. value compared to the SMC method. As a result, the proposed MFC

9
A.T. Vo et al. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373

Fig. 5. The position trajectory of the sphere under four methods with an upper limit of 4 V and a lower limit of −4 V.

Fig. 6. The trajectory errors of the sphere under four methods, each with an upper limit of 4 V and a lower limit of −4 V.

Fig. 7. Control voltage output of four methods, each with an upper limit of 4 V and a lower limit of −4 V.

demonstrates smallest fluctuation amplitudes in its control voltage, as Table 6

𝐸RMS using the four separate controllers in Experiment 2.
depicted in Fig. 7. This reduction in oscillation amplitude is attributed
to the improved performance of the proposed MFC in accurately esti- Method 𝐸RMS 𝐸RMS
(sinusoidal orbit case) (rest-to-rest orbit case)
mating the dynamics of the entire system, including disturbances and
PID 1.0 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−3
uncertainties, leading to smoother control signals.
SMC 5.3494 × 10−4 7.3726 × 10−4
FTSMC 5.0101 × 10−4 6.1436 × 10−4
4.3. Results of Experiment 2 and discussion Proposed MFC 1.4819 × 10−4 1.3496 × 10−4

The input saturation phenomenon predominantly impacts the con-

vergence phase, where a larger control input facilitates faster con-
vergence, while a reduced control input leads to slower convergence
during this period. To validate this observation, we perform a pairwise
comparison between the results in Figs. 5(a) and 9(a), 5(b) and 9(b), as
well as Figs. 6(a) and 10(a), and 6(b) and 10(b). Through this compar-
ison, we note that constraining the output voltage of each controller
from the 4 V to −4 V range to the 3 V to −3 V range results in a

10
A.T. Vo et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of 𝐸RMS between Experiments 1 and 2.
Fig. 9. The position trajectory of the sphere under four methods with an upper limit of 3 V and a lower limit of −3 V.
diminished convergence speed of the system state during the approach
phase. Despite this reduction, the proposed controller maintains a rapid
convergence, even slightly faster than SMC and FTSMC, thanks to the
design of an auxiliary system to mitigate the effects of input saturation.
Furthermore, upon comparing the results in Tables 5 and 6 using
Fig. 8, which illustrates the comparison of 𝐸RMS between Experiments 1
and 2, we observe that the 𝐸RMS values are nearly identical in both
experiments. This similarity obtains because the control voltage output
of each controller stabilizes within the 3 V to −3 V range. Consequently,
the analysis and evaluation of the results in Experiment 2 are entirely
analogous to those in Experiment 1. From the comparison of 𝐸RMS
between Experiments 1 and 2, the proposed MFC is the best effective
method with the smallest 𝐸RMS value in all cases.
The control voltage outputs of the four methods are illustrated in
Fig. 11. Upon observing Figs. 11(a) and 11(b), it becomes evident that
their behaviors are nearly identical to those in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b).
Therefore, for a more straightforward understanding, readers can refer
back to the analysis in Experiment 1.
In both experiments, the results highlight the efficacy of the pro-
posed MFC in achieving superior tracking control. This superiority is
evident across various performance metrics, including convergence,
minimal SSTE, maximum overshoot, control oscillatory behavior, and
robustness. Notably, the MFC outperforms all other tested methods,
even under diverse operating conditions such as input saturation, sen-
sor noise, uncertain terms, and different trajectories. In summary, these
findings strongly support the conclusion that the proposed MFC is
highly effective in controlling UML systems.
11
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373
5. Concluding remarks
Our novel MFC strategy for UML systems effectively addresses a
spectrum of challenges, including uncertainties, external perturbations,
input saturation effects, and dependencies on the dynamical model.
The implemented MFC ensures the rapid convergence of TE variables
to the equilibrium point while adhering to predefined PP criteria. Our
strategy relies on FTPP functions to confine maximum overshoot and
SSTE within predetermined boundaries.
Key to our approach is the incorporation of RBFNN, facilitating the
estimation of system uncertainties and system dynamics. Additionally,
a FTAS is introduced into the control system. This minimizes chattering,
mitigates the adverse impact of input saturation, and enhances overall
control performance. The resulting MFC strategy guarantees fixed-
time stable positioning for levitated spheres, enabling the system to
execute various orbit-tracking missions with exceptional accuracy, swift
convergence, stabilization, and reduced chattering in real-time.
The stability and efficacy of our proposed MFC are rigorously
demonstrated through mathematical proofs utilizing Lyapunov theory
and experiments conducted on a laboratory ML model. These vali-
dations underscore the robustness and practical applicability of our
developed MFC strategy.
In summary, our approach not only ensures enhanced robust control
for UML systems under uncertainties, disturbances, input saturation,
and dependencies on the dynamical model, surpassing traditional meth-
ods in stability and performance, but also showcases the potential
for broader applicability to other systems, such as SONL systems.
A.T. Vo et al.
Fig. 10. The trajectory errors of the sphere under four methods, each with an upper limit of 3 V and a lower limit of −3 V.
Fig. 11. Control voltage output of four methods, each with an upper limit of 3 V and a lower limit of −3 V.
Therefore, we plan to extend our current study to robot manipula-
tors or autonomous underwater vehicles while also considering fault
conditions and maximum delay time in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Anh Tuan Vo: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Concep-
tualization. Thanh Nguyen Truong: Visualization, Validation, Soft-
ware, Resources, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Hee–
Jun Kang: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition,
Data curation. Tien Dung Le: Visualization, Validation, Software, In-
vestigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by Research Fund of University of Ulsan,
South Korea.
12
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373
References
Adıgüzel, F., Dokumacılar, E., Akbatı, O., Türker, T., 2018. Design and implementation
of an adaptive backstepping controller for a magnetic levitation system. Trans. Inst.
Meas. Control 40 (8), 2466–2475.
Ahmad, G., Amin, U., 2017. Design, construction and study of small scale vertical
axis wind turbine based on a magnetically levitated axial flux permanent magnet
generator. Renew. Energy 101, 286–292.
Ahmad, I., Javaid, M.A., 2010. Nonlinear model & controller design for magnetic
levitation system. Recent Adv. Signal Process. Robot. Autom. 324–328.
Al-Muthairi, N., Zribi, M., et al., 2004. Sliding mode control of a magnetic levitation
system. Math. Probl. Eng. 2004, 93–107.
Bechlioulis, C.P., Rovithakis, G.A., 2008. Robust adaptive control of feedback lineariz-
able MIMO nonlinear systems with prescribed performance. IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control 53 (9), 2090–2099.
Cao, Y., Cao, J., Song, Y., 2021. Practical prescribed time control of Euler–Lagrange
systems with partial/full state constraints: A settling time regulator-based approach.
IEEE Trans. Cybern. 52 (12), 13096–13105.
Chen, Q., Tan, Y., Li, J., Oetomo, D., Mareels, I., 2018. Model-guided data-driven
decentralized control for magnetic levitation systems. IEEE Access 6, 43546–43562.
Chen, M., Tao, G., Jiang, B., 2014. Dynamic surface control using neural networks for
a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with input saturation. IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw. Learn. Syst. 26 (9), 2086–2097.
Corradini, M.L., Cristofaro, A., 2018. Nonsingular terminal sliding-mode control of
nonlinear planar systems with global fixed-time stability guarantees. Automatica
95, 561–565.
de Jesús Rubio, J., 2023. Bat algorithm based control to decrease the control energy
consumption and modified bat algorithm based control to increase the trajectory
tracking accuracy in robots. Neural Netw. 161, 437–448.
de Jesús Rubio, J., Hernandez, M.A., Rosas, F.J., Orozco, E., Balcazar, R., Pacheco, J.,
2024. Genetic high-gain controller to improve the position perturbation attenuation
and compact high-gain controller to improve the velocity perturbation attenuation
in inverted pendulums. Neural Netw. 170, 32–45.
A.T. Vo et al.
Do Chung, Y., Lee, C.Y., Kim, D.W., Kang, H., Park, Y.G., Yoon, Y.S., 2017. Conceptual
design and operating characteristics of multi-resonance antennas in the wireless
power charging system for superconducting MAGLEV train. IEEE Trans. Appl.
Supercond. 27 (4), 1–5.
Dong, L., You, S., 2014. Adaptive control of an active magnetic bearing with external
disturbance. ISA Trans. 53 (5), 1410–1419.
Esfandiari, K., Abdollahi, F., Talebi, H.A., 2014. Adaptive control of uncertain nonaffine
nonlinear systems with input saturation using neural networks. IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw. Learn. Syst. 26 (10), 2311–2322.
Farahmand, B., Dehghani, M., Vafamand, N., Mirzaee, A., Boostani, R., Pieper, J.K.,
2023. Robust nonlinear control of blood glucose in diabetic patients subject to
model uncertainties. ISA Trans. 133, 353–368.
Feng, Y., Yu, X., Han, F., 2013. On nonsingular terminal sliding-mode control of
nonlinear systems. Automatica 49 (6), 1715–1722.
Galvão, R.K.H., Yoneyama, T., de Araújo, F.M.U., Machado, R.G., 2003. A simple
technique for identifying a linearized model for a didactic magnetic levitation
system. IEEE Trans. Educ. 46 (1), 22–25.
Gao, Y.-F., Sun, X.-M., Wen, C., Wang, W., 2016. Adaptive tracking control for a class of
stochastic uncertain nonlinear systems with input saturation. IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control 62 (5), 2498–2504.
García-Chávez, R.E., Silva-Ortigoza, R., Hernández-guzmáN, V.M., Marciano-
Melchor, M., Orta-Quintana, Á.A., García-Sánchez, J.R., Taud, H., 2023. A
robust sliding mode and PI-based tracking control for the MIMO ‘‘DC/DC buck
converter–Inverter–DC motor’’ system. IEEE Access 11, 119396–119408.
Jang, M.-J., Chen, C.-L., Tsao, Y.-M., 2005. Sliding mode control for active magnetic
bearing system with flexible rotor. J. Franklin Inst. B 342 (4), 401–419.
Jing, Y., Xiao, J., Zhang, K., 2013. Compensation of gap sensor for high-speed maglev
train with RBF neural network. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 35 (7), 933–939.
Jing, C., Xu, H., Niu, X., Song, X., 2019. Adaptive nonsingular terminal sliding mode
control for attitude tracking of spacecraft with actuator faults. IEEE Access 7,
31485–31493.
Kaloust, J., Ham, C., Siehling, J., Jongekryg, E., Han, Q., 2004. Nonlinear robust control
design for levitation and propulsion of a maglev system. IEEE Proc. D 151 (4),
460–464.
Karayiannidis, Y., Doulgeri, Z., 2012. Model-free robot joint position regulation and
tracking with prescribed performance guarantees. Robot. Auton. Syst. 60 (2),
214–226.
Kuo, C.-L., Li, T.-H.S., Guo, N.R., 2005. Design of a novel fuzzy sliding-mode control
for magnetic ball levitation system. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 42, 295–316.
Lee, H.-W., Kim, K.-C., Lee, J., 2006. Review of maglev train technologies. IEEE Trans.
Magn. 42 (7), 1917–1925.
Lughofer, E., Skrjanc, I., 2022. Evolving error feedback fuzzy model for improved
robustness under measurement noise. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 31 (3), 997–1008.
Mei, Y., Wang, J., Park, J.H., Shi, K., Shen, H., 2022. Adaptive fixed-time control for
nonlinear systems against time-varying actuator faults. Nonlinear Dynam. 107 (4),
3629–3640.
Morales, R., Feliu, V., Sira-Ramirez, H., 2010. Nonlinear control for magnetic levitation
systems based on fast online algebraic identification of the input gain. IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol. 19 (4), 757–771.
Polyakov, A., 2011. Nonlinear feedback design for fixed-time stabilization of linear
control systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 57 (8), 2106–2110.
Ren, M., Oka, K., 2022. Design and analysis of a non-contact tension testing device
based on magnetic levitation. IEEE Access 10, 19312–19332.
Rubio, J.D.J., Orozco, E., Cordova, D.A., Islas, M.A., Pacheco, J., Gutierrez, G.J.,
Zacarias, A., Soriano, L.A., Meda-Campaña, J.A., Mujica-Vargas, D., 2022. Modified
linear technique for the controllability and observability of robotic arms. IEEE
Access 10, 3366–3377.
13
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133 (2024) 108373
Sai, H., Xu, Z., Xia, C., Sun, X., 2022. Approximate continuous fixed-time terminal slid-
ing mode control with prescribed performance for uncertain robotic manipulators.
Nonlinear Dynam. 110 (1), 431–448.
Sathiyavathi, S., et al., 2019. Design of sliding mode controller for magnetic levitation
system. Comput. Electr. Eng. 78, 184–203.
Shao, K., Zheng, J., Tang, R., Li, X., Man, Z., Liang, B., 2022. Barrier function
based adaptive sliding mode control for uncertain systems with input saturation.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 27 (6), 4258–4268.
Shieh, H.-J., Siao, J.-H., Liu, Y.-C., 2010. A robust optimal sliding-mode control
approach for magnetic levitation systems. Asian J. Control 12 (4), 480–487.
Sira-Ramírez, H., 1992. On the sliding mode control of nonlinear systems. Systems
Control Lett. 19 (4), 303–312.
Sun, Y., Xu, J., Lin, G., Ji, W., Wang, L., 2020. RBF neural network-based supervisor
control for maglev vehicles on an elastic track with network time delay. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Inform. 18 (1), 509–519.
Tian, Y., Cai, Y., Deng, Y., 2020. A fast nonsingular terminal sliding mode control
method for nonlinear systems with fixed-time stability guarantees. IEEE Access 8,
60444–60454.
Tran, X.-T., Kang, H.-J., 2014. Arbitrary finite-time tracking control for magnetic
levitation systems. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 11 (10), 157.
Truong, T.N., Vo, A.T., Kang, H.-J., 2022. Real-time implementation of the prescribed
performance tracking control for magnetic levitation systems. Sensors 22 (23),
9132.
Venkataraman, S., Gulati, S., 1993. Control of nonlinear systems using terminal sliding
modes.
Wai, R.-J., Chuang, K.-L., Lee, J.-D., 2010. On-line supervisory control design for
maglev transportation system via total sliding-mode approach and particle swarm
optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 55 (7), 1544–1559.
Wang, H., Bai, W., Zhao, X., Liu, P.X., 2021. Finite-time-prescribed performance-
based adaptive fuzzy control for strict-feedback nonlinear systems with dynamic
uncertainty and actuator faults. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 52 (7), 6959–6971.
Wang, D., Meng, F., Meng, S., 2020a. Linearization method of nonlinear magnetic
levitation system. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 1–5.
Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Gao, P., 2020b. Design and analysis of second-order sliding mode
controller for active magnetic bearing. Energies 13 (22), 5965.
Wang, J., Zhao, L., Yu, L., 2020c. Adaptive terminal sliding mode control for magnetic
levitation systems with enhanced disturbance compensation. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 68 (1), 756–766.
Yadav, S., Verma, S.K., Nagar, S.K., 2018. Performance enhancement of magnetic
levitation system using teaching learning based optimization. Alexandria Eng. J.
57 (4), 2427–2433.
Yang, D., Gao, X., Cui, E., Ma, Z., 2020a. State-constraints adaptive backstepping control
for active magnetic bearings with parameters nonstationarities and uncertainties.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 68 (10), 9822–9831.
Yang, W., Meng, F., Meng, S., Man, S., Pang, A., 2020b. Tracking control of magnetic
levitation system using model-free RBF neural network design. IEEE Access 8,
204563–204572.
Yang, Z.-J., Tateishi, M., 2001. Adaptive robust nonlinear control of a magnetic
levitation system. Automatica 37 (7), 1125–1131.
Yuan, X., Chen, B., Lin, C., 2021. Neural adaptive fixed-time control for nonlinear
systems with full-state constraints. IEEE Trans. Cybern..
Zhao, K., Song, Y., Ma, T., He, L., 2017. Prescribed performance control of uncertain
Euler–Lagrange systems subject to full-state constraints. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
Learn. Syst. 29 (8), 3478–3489.
Zuo, Z., 2015. Nonsingular fixed-time consensus tracking for second-order multi-agent
networks. Automatica 54, 305–309.