756 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO.

2, MARCH 2016

Theoretical Analysis and Experimental Validation of a Simplified Fractional

Order Controller for a Magnetic Levitation System
Silviu Folea, Member, IEEE, Cristina I. Muresan, Robin De Keyser, and Clara M. Ionescu, Member, IEEE

Abstract— Fractional order (FO) controllers are among the require a very accurate model for the magnetic levitation
emerging solutions for increasing closed-loop performance and system. This may represent a major problem, since a precise
robustness. However, they have been applied mostly to stable dynamic model may be difficult to obtain [1], [5] because
processes. When applied to unstable systems, the tuning
technique uses the well-known frequency-domain procedures of the prevailing nonlinearities that characterize the system,
or complex genetic algorithms. This brief proposes a special including the variation of the gain of the magnetic
type of an FO controller, as well as a novel tuning procedure, levitation system as a function of the distance to the
which is simple and does not involve any optimization routines. magnet [6]. Other control approaches are based on designing
The controller parameters may be determined directly using the controllers for the linearized dynamic model at nominal
overshoot requirements and the study of the stability of
FO systems. The tuning procedure is given for the general operating points. Nevertheless, the tracking performances of
case of a class of unstable systems with pole multiplicity. The such control strategies deteriorate drastically with increasing
advantage of the proposed FO controller consists in the simplicity deviation from nominal operating points [1]. To account for
of the tuning approach. The case study considered in this the changing parameters and dynamics of magnetic levitation
brief consists in a magnetic levitation system. The experimental systems, sliding mode, nonlinear, μ-synthesis, PIDs combined
results provided show that the designed controller can indeed
stabilize the magnetic levitation system, as well as provide with notch filters, gain scheduling, backstepping, and
robustness to modeling uncertainties and supplementary loading fuzzy neural network-based controllers have been proposed,
conditions. For comparison purposes, a simple PID controller is providing robustness against unmodeled nonlinearities present
also designed to point out the advantages of using the proposed in the system [1], [3], [5]–[12]. A networked control system
FO controller. application on an unstable triple-magnetic-levitation setup has
Index Terms— Control design, fractional calculus, robustness, also been reported, with the controllers tuned according to the
stability analysis, unstable systems. H∞ theory [13].
Fractional calculus has been listed among the current
I. I NTRODUCTION trends in control engineering, with a wide application in

T HE control of magnetic levitation systems has received

considerable scientific interest not only because of the
highly nonlinear and unstable behavior of such systems [1]
both modeling [14], [15] and control design [16]–[19]. The
main advantage of fractional order (FO) controllers is their
ability to enhance the performance of closed-loop systems and
but also because of their ability to eliminate friction, increase the robustness [6], [19], [20]. The tuning approach
decrease maintenance cost, and achieve high-precision for FO PIλ Dμ controllers consists in specifying a set of
positioning [1], [2]. These advantages make magnetic levita- performance criteria and transposing these specifications into
tion systems a viable choice for high-speed trains, magnetic several equations. Using optimization routines or graphical
bearings, vibration isolation systems, and wind tunnel methods the controller parameters are determined [21]–[23].
levitation [1], [3], [4]. For unstable systems, few papers deal with the design
Numerous control solutions have been proposed for such of FO controllers [24], [25]. For magnetic levitation systems,
systems, such as feedback linearization techniques [5], which FO controllers have been previously designed [26], [27].
Manuscript received October 27, 2014; revised March 2, 2015; accepted However, all of these papers propose the general form of the
May 3, 2015. Date of publication July 8, 2015; date of current version FO PI or PD controllers and the tuning technique uses the
February 17, 2016. Manuscript received in final form May 21, 2015. This work well-known frequency-domain procedures [27] or complex
was supported by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research
National Council for Development and Innovation–Executive Unit for
genetic algorithms [26].
Financing Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation under In this brief, a special type of an FO controller, different
Project PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0307 and Project TE 59/2013. Recommended than the usual FO PID, is proposed for the magnetic levitation
by Associate Editor Y. Chen.
S. Folea, C. I. Muresan, and C. M. Ionescu are with the Department of
system. The tuning procedure is simple and does not involve
Automation, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca 400604, any optimization routines. The controller parameters may be
Romania (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; determined directly using overshoot requirements and the
[email protected]).
R. De Keyser is with the Department of Electrical Energy, study of the stability of FO systems. The advantage of the
Systems and Automation, Ghent University, Ghent 9052, Belgium (e-mail: proposed FO controller consists in the simplicity of the tuning
[email protected]). approach. The novelty of this brief resides in the new tuning
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. technique for FO controllers, as well as in the different form
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2015.2446496 of the FO controller proposed for a class of unstable systems
1063-6536 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
FOLEA et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF A SIMPLIFIED FO CONTROLLER 757

with pole multiplicity. In addition, this brief presents the The equation in (6) is a function of the complex variable s
implementation and experimental validation of the proposed whose domain can be seen as a Riemann surface, with the
control algorithm on a pilot scale magnetic levitation stand. principal sheet defined as −π < arg(s) < π [22]. This
An analysis regarding the robustness of the proposed controller definition of the principal sheet assumes a cut along R − and
is also included. is associated to the Cauchy principal value of the integral
This brief is structured into five main parts. Section II corresponding to the inverse transformation of Laplace, or to
presents the algorithm for tuning stabilizing FO controllers for that obtained by direct application of the residue
a set of unstable systems with pole multiplicity. Section III theorem [22]. In the case of λ = (1/n), where n is a
details the experimental setup, as well as the controller positive integer, the n sheets of the Riemann surface will be
tuning procedure and the experimental results. The robustness given by
analysis is carried out in Section IV, including several s = |s|e j φ , (2i + 1)π < φ < (2i + 3)π (7)
operating points, as well as two case studies in which
supplementary loads are added to the permanent disk magnet. with i = −1, 0, 1, . . . , n − 2. For example, for i = −1, the
The experimental results show that the designed controller principal Riemann sheet is obtained, whereas for i = 0, the
is robust against modeling uncertainties and intrinsic secondary Riemann sheet is obtained. If a mapping is used,
nonlinearities. Section V presents the comparison of the defined as w = s λ , then the Riemann sheets become the
proposed control strategy with a simple PID controller, regions in the w plane defined by
while the final section summarizes the main outcome of w = |w|e j θ , λ(2i + 1)π < θ < λ(2i + 3)π. (8)
this brief.
The characteristic equation in (6) will have an infinite
II. S TABILITY A NALYSIS OF A F RACTIONAL O RDER number of roots, among which only a finite number of roots
C ONTROLLER FOR A C LASS OF U NSTABLE P ROCESSES will be on the principal sheet of the Riemann surface [28].
The transfer function of the class of unstable systems with These roots are generally referred to as the structural roots
pole multiplicity considered in this brief is of the system and are responsible for the closed-loop system
exhibiting either damped oscillation, oscillation of constant
1
G(s) = (1) amplitude, oscillation of increasing amplitude with monotonic
(s − z)(s + z) growth. The roots that are located in the secondary sheets of
with z > 0. A simple PD controller may be designed to the Riemann surface are related to solutions that are always
stabilize the system monotonically decreasing functions [22], thus a system that
CPD (s) = k(s + z) (2) has all poles in the secondary Riemann sheets is closed-loop
stable.
with z chosen to compensate the stable pole of the system For the case of commensurate-order systems, where all the
in (1). The resulting closed-loop system will exhibit an over- orders of derivation are integer multiples of a base order,
damped response, for a value of the gain kstab that will make the characteristic equation is a polynomial of the complex
the system stable. However, such a PD controller will exhibit variable w = s λ . The stability condition for these types of
steady-state offsets, which could be eliminated with a simple systems is expressed as [22], [28], [29]
PID controller. An alternative solution to the classical integer π
|θ | > λ . (9)
order PID controller is proposed in this brief, consisting in 2
a PD controller and a fractional integrator that eliminates the Using (8) and making i = −1, the condition for the
steady-state errors principal Riemann sheet is obtained as
(s + z)
C(s) = k (3) −λπ < θ < λπ. (10)
sλ
with λ ∈ [0, 1]. For certain values of k and λ, the closed-loop Intersecting (9) and (10), yields the final stability condition
system will become stable. The choice of the FO controller for all roots lying in the first Riemann sheet
   
in (3), apart from its simplicity, is also justified by the lower π π
θ  λ , λπ ∪ − λπ, −λ . (11)
number of tuning parameters. The controller in (3) may be 2 2
rewritten as an FO I λ D 1−λ controller
  In the case of λ = (1/n), where n is a positive integer, the
z stability condition in (11) is modified to be
C(s) = k s 1−λ
+ λ . (4)    
s π π π π
θ , ∪ − ,− . (12)
The open-loop transfer function would then be given as 2n n n 2n
k Considering the above mapping, w = s λ , and λ = (1/n),
Hopen−loop(s) = C(s)G(s) = . (5)
s λ (s− z) the characteristic polynomial in (6) becomes
The characteristic equation used to determine the stability wn+1 − z ∗ w1 + k = 0. (13)
of the closed-loop system is then
The tuning of the controller parameters k and λ is performed
k + s λ (s − z) = 0. (6) to meet the overshoot requirements (%OS) and it is based on
758 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

Fig. 2. (a) Experimental setup of the magnetic levitation system. (b) Block
diagram of the magnetic levitation system.

2) Evaluate the angle α, corresponding to the imposed

%OS∗

Fig. 1. Equivalence between (a) s plane and (b) w plane. α = sin−1 ξ. (18)
3) Using (16), determine the range for n and the
the root locus analysis of (13) in the w plane. The equivalence corresponding FO λ
of the s and w planes is given in Fig. 1. For k = 0, the roots π
+α
of (13) are n> 2
π . (19)
2 −α
1 2mπ
w = 0 and w = z e n n (14) Based on (17)–(19), for a small overshoot, α → (π/2),
with m ∈ Z. It can be easily seen from (14) that for m = 0, which in turn leads to n → ∞ ⇒ λ → 0. Select n as
the roots that lie in the principal Riemann sheet correspond the minimum n min that obeys (19).
to w = 0 and w = z (1/n) , with all other roots, corresponding 4) Based on stability analysis in the w plane, deter-
to m = 0, located in the secondary sheets. The root mine k such that the roots of (13) located in the
locus corresponding to the two roots located in the principal principal Riemann sheet lie on the imposed %OS∗
Riemann sheet is given in Fig. 1(b). According to Fig. 1(a), line.
in order for the closed-loop system to have a certain overshoot,
denoted %OS, the poles must lie on the %OS line. The III. T UNING AND E XPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF A
following relations hold: S IMPLIFIED F RACTIONAL O RDER C ONTROLLER
√
FOR A M AGNETIC L EVITATION S YSTEM
sin α = ζ and %OS = e−πξ/ 1−ζ
2
(15)
An experimental laboratory scale magnetic levitation
where ξ is the damping factor. The %OS line and its corre-
unit has been developed and built, as given in Fig. 2(a),
sponding angle α in the s plane are translated into the w plane
consisting of a small permanent disk magnet suspended in
as indicated in Fig. 1(b), with the angle β = ((α + (π/2))/n).
a voltage-controlled magnetic field. Several modules are
In order for the closed-loop poles to have an exact
used to implement the control algorithm, as indicated in
overshoot %OS, the angle of the asymptotes and the angle β
Fig. 2(b), such as the NI cRIO-9014 embedded real-time
must meet the following requirement:
controller, the NI 9103 reconfigurable chassis, and the
π α + π2 π NI 9215/NI 9263 input/output modules. The vertical position
β< or < . (16)
n+1 n n+1 of the levitating permanent magnet is measured using an
Using (15) and (16), a simple tuning procedure may be SS495A ratiometric linear Hall sensor, which generates an
derived to meet an imposed overshoot %OS∗ . output voltage that is proportional with the magnetic field.
1) Compute damping factor ξ as The sensor is placed at the bottom of the experimental unit,
away from the coil to eliminate the influence of the magnetic
|ln(%OS∗ )|
ζ = √ . (17) field generated by the coil on the magnetic field generated
π 2 + ln2 (%OS∗ ) by the permanent magnet. A low-pass filter has also been
FOLEA et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF A SIMPLIFIED FO CONTROLLER 759

point (x 0 , i 0 ) by applying the Taylor series expansion


∂ f 
f (x, ẍ, i ) = f (x 0 , ẍ 0 , i 0 ) + (x − x 0 )
∂ x (x0 ,ẍ0 ,i0 )
 
∂ f  ∂ f 
+ (ẍ − ẍ 0 ) + (i − i 0 ).
∂ ẍ (x0 ,ẍ0 ,i0 ) ∂i (x0 ,ẍ0 ,i0 )
(24)
Using (23) into (24), leads to
 
2ci 2 
Fig. 3. Free body diagram of the magnetic levitation system. f (x, ẍ, i ) = − 3  (x − x 0 ) + m|(x0 ,ẍ0 ,i0 ) (ẍ − ẍ 0 )
x (x 0 , ẍ 0 ,i0 )
 
2ci 
+ (i − i 0 ). (25)
implemented to filter the noisy signals at high frequencies. x 2 (x0 ,ẍ0 ,i0 )
A current driver was used to control the current running
through the coil, yielding a linear relation between voltage and Considering now the linearization point (x 0 , i 0 ), and
denoting i = i − i 0 and x = x − x 0 , (25) may be
current
rewritten as
u
i= (20) 2ci 02 2ci 0
67.83 f (x, ẍ, i ) = − x + m ẍ + i = 0. (26)
x 03 x 02
where u is the voltage [V] and i is the current applied to the
Applying the Laplace transform to the linearized (26),
coil [A].
leads to
The electromagnet coil is a 24 V dc solenoid having the iron
core replaced with an aluminum one. The suspended object is a 2ci 02 2ci 0
− x(s) + ms 2 x(s) + i (s) = 0 (27)
permanent magnet and under this circumstances, it is preferred x 03 x 02
a material having a smaller magnetic permeability such that which leads to the final transfer function of the mechanical
the magnet will not get stuck at the bottom of the coil. The subsystem
levitating permanent disk magnet, made out of neodymium–
2ci0
ferric–boric, weighs 1.79 g, with a diameter of 10 mm and x(s) x 02
a height of 3 mm. The coil has a diameter of 22 mm, =− . (28)
i (s) ms 2 −
2ci20
with a height of 13 mm, and resistance of 95 , being x 03
made out of 2600 turns, with each wire having a diameter
For the electromagnetic subsystem, the relation between the
of 0.18 mm.
voltage and the current in (20) is used, leading to the final
To model the magnetic levitation system, the free body
transfer function for the magnetic levitation system
diagram given in Fig. 3 is used, as well as electromag-
netic and mechanical equations. The resulting net force 2ci0
x(s) x 02
acting on the permanent disk magnet, denoted Fnet , is =−  . (29)
u(s) 2ci02
computed using Newton’s law of motion while neglecting 67.83 ms 2 − x 03
friction
To determine the unknown parameter c in (23), several
i2
Fnet = Fg − Fl = mg − c 2 (21) experiments have been performed by placing the magnet at
x different distances from the coil and supplying the coil with
where Fl is the electromagnetic force (levitation force) [6] a voltage large enough to raise the magnet. The experiments
and Fg is the gravitational force, m is the mass of the and resulting values for c, computed using (23), with ẍ = 0,
permanent magnet [kg], g = 9.81 is the gravitational speed are listed in Table I, in the Appendix. The final value for c is
constant [m/s2 ], x is the distance [m], ẍ is the acceleration computed as the mean value, averaging over the interval for x 0
of the permanent magnet [m/s2 ], and c is the magnetic force between 3 and 6.5 mm. In this interval, the value for c does not
constant. The resulting net force is equal to vary much from the average computed value of 8.05 × 10−5 ,
and may be thus assumed as constant. For an equilibrium point
Fnet = m ẍ. (22) chosen as (x 0 , i 0 ) = (4.2 × 10−3 m, 49.8 × 10−3 A), the
transfer function in (29) becomes
Replacing (22) into (21) leads to x(s) 6.1
=− . (30)
u(s) (s − 70)(s + 70)
i2
m ẍ − mg + c = 0. (23) The transfer function in (30) is rewritten so as to be similar
x2 to (1)
Denoting f (x, ẍ, i ) = m ẍ − mg + c(i 2 /x 2 ), the equation x(s)
=−
1
(31)
in (23) is then linearized with respect to an equilibrium u(s) (s − 70)(s + 70)
760 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

Fig. 4. Root locus for n = 5 and λ = 0.2.

where the gain 6.1 in (30) will be considered as part of

the controller gain k, in (3). To tune a simplified stabilizing
controller for the magnetic levitation system in (31), the
stability analysis in Section II, as well as an overshoot
requirement of %OS∗ = 1% are employed. First, based
on (17), ζ = 0.8261, while according to (18), α = 0.97 rad.
Finally, using (19), the following result is obtained:
n > 4.2. (32)
Since n is a positive integer, the minimum value that
satisfies (32) is n = 5, or λ = 0.2, which is further used
in the tuning of the parameter k by plotting the root locus
of (13). This is given in Fig. 4, for several values of k. It can
be easily noted that for k = 600, the root locus crosses the
imposed %OS∗ line.
For k < 600, the closed-loop system will exhibit an
oscillatory behavior, while for larger values of the gain k,
the control effort will be increased, as also demonstrated
in Figs. 5 and 6.
Fig. 5(a) and (b) shows the position of the disk, according
to different reference step signals, and considering the open-
loop gain k = 600 in comparison with k = 300 and k = 1000.
As expected from Fig. 4, the lower the value of k, the closer
the system is to the unstable region. The experimental results
demonstrate this accurately, with high oscillatory behavior of
the closed-loop system in the case of k = 300, as indicated
in Fig. 5(a). A higher value of the gain, k = 1000, should
result in roots of the characteristic equation closer to the
secondary sheet of the Riemann surface.
This implies that the closed-loop system should exhibit
an overdamped response. The experimental results given
in Fig. 5(b) show that for k = 1000, the magnetic disk tracks
its reference position with less overshoot and less oscillations
in comparison with the case when k = 600. The required Fig. 5. Experimental results with the FO controller considering different
open-loop gains. (a) Disk position for k = 600 in comparison with k = 300.
control signals are also given in Fig. 5(c) and (d). The results (b) Disk position for k = 600 in comparison with k = 1000. (c) Control
show that the larger the open-loop gain k, the larger the control effort disk for k = 600 (black line) in comparison with k = 300 (gray line).
effort. Thus, a value k = 600 has been selected with the (d) Control effort for k = 600 (black line) in comparison with k = 1000
(gray line).
resulting FO controller indicated in (33). Considering that the
process exhibits a 6.1 gain, the final FO controller gain is 98.5,
with the transfer function
  To implement the FO controller, a digital approximation was
0.8 70 derived using the recursive Tustin method, of ninth order, with
C(s) = −98.5 s + 0.2 . (33)
s a sampling time Ts = 2 ms [30].
FOLEA et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF A SIMPLIFIED FO CONTROLLER 761

Fig. 6. Closed-loop simulation and experimental results considering a

reference step change around the linearization point and the simplified
FO controller. Fig. 8. Robustness experimental results considering several operating points
and the simplified FO controller.

Fig. 7. Robustness simulation results considering several operating points

and the simplified FO controller.

Fig. 6 shows the closed-loop simulation results, with the Fig. 9. Robustness experimental results considering a load placed on the
permanent disk magnet and the simplified FO controller.
designed FO controller given in (33), in comparison with the
experimental results. The reference position for the permanent
disk changes from 4.2 to 4.5 mm, thus close to the at a reference step change of 7.4 mm). Nevertheless, the
linearization point, 4.2 mm. The simulation and experimental FO controller ensures the closed-loop stability of the magnetic
results in Fig. 6 are in reasonable agreement, both in terms of levitation system.
overshoot and settling time. The experimental results are given in Fig. 8. The designed
controller stabilizes the magnetic levitation system, with a
IV. ROBUSTNESS A NALYSIS settling time ts = 0.1 s in the linearization point, and a
To test the robustness of the designed controller, several slight increase to ts = 0.15 s at different operating points.
reference step changes were considered, as indicated The overshoot is higher, compared with the simulation results,
in Table II, in the Appendix. The parameter c was also but as expected from the nonlinear character of the magnetic
modified to fit the experimental data and computed values levitation system.
listed in Table I, rather than considering the averaged value. Fig. 9 presents the staircase change in the reference
The corresponding transfer functions that approximate the signal, but considering different loading conditions, in which
behavior of the magnetic levitation system in each operation a supplementary weight was added to the permanent disk
point are listed in Table II and have been used to obtain magnet: a low weight of 0.2 g and a medium weight of 0.4 g,
the simulation results given in Fig. 7. The simulation representing a 10% and 20%, respectively, supplementary
results in Fig. 7 show that around the linearization point, the added weight. Apart from these additional loadings, modeling
overshoot and the settling time do not vary, with the overshoot errors are also present in the experiment given in Fig. 9,
σ = 55% and the settling time around ts = 0.1 s. When as suggested by the results in Tables I and II in the Appendix.
considering a wider operating point for the magnetic levitation The experimental results in Fig. 9 show that the designed
system, with the position reference signal varying between controller behaves robustly to these load changes and to the
3 and 6.5 mm—the same interval used for computing the modeling errors associated to the change in the operating
average value for the parameter c, the settling time does point. Comparing the experimental results considering the
not modify much, however, the overshoot increases with magnetic disk with no additional weight, the magnetic disk
nearly 20% (from 55% to 65%, at a reference step change with an additional weight of 0.2 and 0.4 g, respectively, the
of 5.7 mm). Outside this interval, the overshoot increases even overshoot has a slight increase with increasing the weight,
more, as well as the settling time (σ = 78% and ts = 0.14 s, as well as a slight increase in the settling time.
762 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

TABLE I
C OMPUTATION OF THE PARAMETER c

Fig. 10. Closed-loop simulation results considering a reference step change

TABLE II
around the linearization point with FO controller and integer order PID.
M AGNETIC L EVITATION S YSTEM T RANSFER F UNCTIONS
C ORRESPONDING TO A C ERTAIN O PERATION P OINT

Fig. 11. Robustness experimental results considering several operating points

and the integer order PID controller. increase in the settling time, as compared with the
FO controller.
The robustness simulation results considering several
V. C OMPARISON W ITH A S IMPLE I NTEGER operating points given in Fig. 11 show a poorer closed-loop
O RDER PID C ONTROLLER performance when compared with the results in Fig. 8 obtained
For comparison purposes, the equivalent integer order with the proposed simplified FO controller. The magnetic
version of the controller given in (3) could be considered levitation system experiences some increased oscillations and
a larger overshoot when controlled with the PID in (35),
(s + z)
CPI (s) = −k (34) especially away from the linearization point. The integer
s order PID provides a poorer robustness compared with the
where z is the open-loop pole of the process transfer function. FO controller.
The classical integer order PI controller in (34) would not
be able to stabilize processes described as in (1). Thus, the VI. C ONCLUSION
classical integer order controller in (34) is altered to be able This brief has focused upon an alternative simpler solution
to meet the stabilizing requirement to the stabilization of second-order unstable plants, which
consists in a special type of an FO controller. The tuning pro-
(s + z)2
CPID (s) = −k . (35) cedure for this type of controller is very simple and it is based
s upon specifying the overshoot requirement and determining
Since the purpose of this brief has been to design simple the controller parameters directly based on stability analysis.
controllers, the one given in (35) is the simplest form of Such a tuning procedure has not been used before for unstable
a traditional PID controller that requires only one tuning systems. A second advantage of the tuning procedure proposed
parameter, the gain k. The tuning is performed using root in this brief, consists in the direct computation of the controller
locus analysis, such that the system will exhibit the same parameters, with no optimization routines required. A case
overshoot as the FO controller. Fig. 10 shows the closed-loop study is also presented, consisting in a magnetic levitation
simulation results with the two proposed controllers: system. The experimental results show that the designed
1) the FO controller in (33) and 2) an integer order FO controller ensures the stability of the closed-loop system in
PID controller, as described in (35), with k = 27.1. The several operating points, as well as in the case of two different
PID controller achieves the same overshoot, with a slight loads placed upon the permanent disk magnet. Although the
FOLEA et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF A SIMPLIFIED FO CONTROLLER 763

robustness issue is not directly tackled in the tuning procedure, [12] A. Noshadi, J. Shi, W. S. Lee, P. Shi, and A. Kalam, “Genetic
the designed FO controller proves to be robust to modeling algorithm-based system identification of active magnetic bearing system:
A frequency-domain approach,” in Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Control
uncertainties and nonlinearities. For comparison purposes, a Autom. (ICCA), Jun. 2014, pp. 1281–1286.
simple integer order PID controller is designed to stabilize [13] R. Pizá, J. Salt, A. Sala, and Á. Cuenca, “Hierarchical triple-Maglev
the magnetic levitation system and to ensure a similar settling dual-rate control over a profibus-DP network,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2014.
overshoot as the FO controller. The experimental results show [14] C. Ionescu, J. T. Machado, and R. De Keyser, “Fractional-order impulse
that in terms of robustness, the integer order PID controller response of the respiratory system,” Comput. Math. Appl., vol. 62, no. 3,
has poorer performance compared with the proposed pp. 845–854, 2011.
[15] L. Zhu and C. R. Knospe, “Modeling of nonlaminated electromagnetic
FO controller. suspension systems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 15, no. 1,
Further developments may include nonlinear predictive pp. 59–69, Feb. 2010.
control techniques combined with fractional calculus, which [16] A. Oustaloup, J. Sabatier, and P. Lanusse, “From fractional robustness
to CRONE control,” Fractional Calculus Appl. Anal., vol. 2, no. 1,
can be applied directly on the nonlinear model of the magnetic pp. 1–30, 1999.
levitation system, thus ensuring an improved robustness over [17] I. Podlubny, “Fractional-order systems and P I λ D μ controllers,” IEEE
the entire operating range. Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 208–214, Jan. 1999.
[18] Y. Luo, Y. Q. Chen, C. Y. Wang, and Y. G. Pi, “Tuning fractional order
proportional integral controllers for fractional order systems,” J. Process
A PPENDIX Control, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 823–831, 2010.
See Tables I and II. [19] E.-H. Dulf, C.-I. Pop, and F.-V. Dulf, “Fractional calculus in 13 C
separation column control,” Signal, Image Video Process., vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 479–485, 2012.
R EFERENCES [20] C. Copot, A. Burlacu, C. M. Ionescu, C. Lazar, and R. De Keyser,
[1] R.-J. Wai and J.-D. Lee, “Robust levitation control for linear Maglev rail “A fractional order control strategy for visual servoing systems,”
system using fuzzy neural network,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 848–855, 2013.
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 4–14, Jan. 2009. [21] J.-Y. Cao and B.-G. Cao, “Design of fractional order controller based
[2] M. S. de Queiroz and S. Pradhananga, “Control of magnetic levitation on particle swarm optimization,” Int. J. Control, Autom. Syst., vol. 4,
systems with reduced steady-state power losses,” IEEE Trans. Control no. 6, pp. 775–781, 2006.
Syst. Technol., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1096–1102, Nov. 2007. [22] C. A. Monje, Y. Chen, B. M. Vinagre, D. Xue, and V. Feliu-Batlle,
[3] J. Kaloust, C. Ham, J. Siehling, E. Jongekryg, and Q. Han, “Nonlinear Fractional-order Systems and Controls: Fundamentals and Applications.
robust control design for levitation and propulsion of a Maglev system,” London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 460–464, Jul. 2004. [23] C. I. Muresan, S. Folea, G. Mois, and E. H. Dulf, “Development
[4] O.-S. Kim, S.-H. Lee, and D.-C. Han, “Positioning performance and and implementation of an FPGA based fractional order controller
straightness error compensation of the magnetic levitation stage sup- for a DC motor,” Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 798–804,
ported by the linear magnetic bearing,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2013.
vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 374–378, Apr. 2003. [24] I. Kheirizad, A. A. Jalali, and K. Khandani, “Stabilization of all-pole
[5] K. S. Peterson, J. W. Grizzle, and A. G. Stefanopoulou, “Nonlinear unstable delay systems by fractional-order [PI] and [PD] controllers,”
control for magnetic levitation of automotive engine vales,” IEEE Trans. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 257–266,
Control Syst. Technol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 346–354, Mar. 2006. 2013.
[6] R. Morales, V. Feliu, and H. Sira-Ramírez, “Nonlinear control for [25] M. S. Tavazoei and M. Haeri, “Stabilization of unstable fixed points of
magnetic levitation systems based on fast online algebraic identification chaotic fractional order systems by a state fractional PI controller,” Eur.
of the input gain,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 19, no. 4, J. Control, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 247–257, 2008.
pp. 757–771, Jul. 2011. [26] L.-Y. Chang and H.-C. Chen, “Tuning of fractional PID controllers
[7] H. M. Gutierrez and P. I. Ro, “Magnetic servo levitation by sliding- using adaptive genetic algorithm for active magnetic bearing
mode control of nonaffine systems with algebraic input invertibility,” system,” WSEAS Trans. Syst., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 158–167,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1449–1455, Oct. 2005. 2009.
[8] Z. Yanhong, Z. Dean, Z. Jiansheng, Z. Zhongqiao, Z. Yiqin, and [27] J. Zhong and L. Li, “Fractional-order system identification and
Z. Yongchun, “Robustness of improving active Maglev motorized spin- proportional-derivative control of a solid-core magnetic bearing,” ISA
dle equilibrium position,” TELKOMNIKA Indonesian J. Elect. Eng., Trans., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1232–1242, 2014.
vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 5161–5168, Sep. 2013. [28] R. Caponetto, G. Dongola, L. Fortuna, and I. Petras, Fractional
[9] J. Xu and Y. Zhou, “A nonlinear control method for the electromagnetic Order Systems: Modeling and Control Applications. Singapore:
suspension system of the Maglev train,” J. Modern Transp., vol. 19, World Scientific, 2010.
no. 3, pp. 176–180, Sep. 2011. [29] A. G. Radwan, A. M. Soliman, A. S. Elwakil, and A. Sedeek, “On
[10] H.-J. Shieh, J.-H. Siao, and Y.-C. Liu, “A robust optimal sliding-mode the stability of linear systems with fractional-order elements,” Chaos,
control approach for magnetic levitation systems,” Asian J. Control, Solitons Fractals, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 2317–2328, 2009.
vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 480–487, Jul. 2010. [30] Y. Q. Chen and K. L. Moore, “Discretization schemes for
[11] R. L. Fittro and C. R. Knospe, “Rotor compliance minimization via fractional-order differentiators and integrators,” IEEE Trans. Cir-
μ-control of active magnetic bearings,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. cuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 363–367,
Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 238–249, Mar. 2002. Mar. 2002.