Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

Nonlinear control of a magnetic bearing system

John Y. Hung *, Nathaniel G. Albritton, Fan Xia
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Auburn University, 200 Broun Hall,
Auburn, AL 36849-5201, USA

Abstract
A nonlinear control system for a magnetic journal bearing is designed using a combination
of feedback linearization and backstepping concepts, and is implemented with a oating-point
digital signal processor. Position control, tracking control, and gain sensitivity experiments
demonstrate improved accuracy and greater stability margin than that achieved using present
industrial practice. The closed-loop response is very easily tuned using the proposed nonlinear
approach, and the nonlinear controller uses signicantly less current than a linear controller
because no bias currents are required in the electromagnets.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonlinear control; Magnetic bearing; Feedback linearization; Recursive or backstepping
design

1. Introduction
As the rotational speeds of modern machinery increase, alternatives to traditional
rolling element or uid lm body bearings are being sought to reduce power loss due
to friction, to reduce vibration, and to extend the life of the machinery. One attractive alternative that has been investigated in recent years is the magnetic bearing,
which uses magnetic forces to suspend a rotor shaft in midair. Magnetic bearings
have been used eectively in specialized applications where the higher initial cost can
be recouped over time by the performance gains. Past uses include turbomolecular
vacuum pumps, electric power utility equipment, gyroscopes, reaction wheels, and
sealed pumps. More recent investigations are studying uses in jet engines, and also
the support of ywheel energy storage systems. However, one obstacle to more
widespread commercial and industrial application of magnetic bearings is the high

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jhung@eng.auburn.edu (J.Y. Hung).

0957-4158/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0957-4158(02)00034-X

622

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

sensitivity of the control system to parametric uncertainties and bearing nonlinearities. Methods for feedback control design typically use a linearized model of the
system, but the highly nonlinear properties of the bearing can limit the performance
of the overall system.
The classical approach for magnetic bearing controller design is to perform a
generalized Taylor series linearization about a nominal equilibrium point. Then,
linear feedback system design techniques are used [13]. Phase-lead type compensators, PID controllers, and notch lters have been shown to be very eective when
the system operation is maintained near the design conditions [46]. However, engineers trying to maximize magnetic bearing capabilities are increasingly operating
the magnets under conditions in which linear approximate models are not sucient.
Challenges include operation under magnetic saturation, and maintaining stability in
the face of large position and load variations.
A more advanced control method that has been reported for magnetic suspension
systems [7] is a direct model reference adaptive control (MRAC) scheme. In that
method, the controller gains are dynamically adjusted with the goal of minimizing
the dierence between the nonlinear system states and a linear closed-loop reference
model. Eectiveness of this method has been encouraging in simulation results. But,
the drawback of this scheme is that there are a number of mechanisms which can
spawn instability:
(a) mismatches between the reference model order and the true system order (unmodeled dynamics),
(b) poor parameter convergence (lack of sucient richness of input signals),
(c) poor local properties (convergence to parameter equilibria that do not correspond to stable closed loop solutions),
(d) and excessive adaptation gains.
In general, convergence and stability can be guaranteed for the adaptive system only
if very restrictive assumptions about the system are made.
In this paper, another nonlinear approach to the electromagnetic bearing control
problem is described. Specically, a combination of input-state linearizing control
[8,9,13,14] and backstepping or recursive design [10,17] has been developed and
implemented with a oating-point digital signal processor (DSP) for control of a
magnetic bearing. Application of input-state linearizing control to a third-order,
single-input magnetic suspension model was reported earlier by the author [11]. The
design model investigated here is fourth-order and has two inputs, so direct application of input-state linearization is signicantly more complex. Therefore, the basic
principles of backstepping design are used to simplify the design process. The resulting control system is modelled by a multiple-loop conguration. A set of inner
loop nonlinear controls linearizes the system dynamics so that a linear, outer-loop
controller can be more easily designed to meet the traditional performance specications. The advantage of the overall approach is that good performance from a
linear controller can be maintained over a broader range of operating conditions, as
compared to operation about a xed equilibrium point.

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

623

The nonlinear control system presented in this paper shares several similarities to
recently published works [1317], but there are also some signicant dierences. In
the areas of similarities, all of the works present evidence of the nonlinear characteristics in magnetic suspension systems. The concept of feedback linearization is
also shared among the cited references. In addition, the backstepping concept is
described in [15], though not experimentally proven. The chief dierences between
the work presented here and the cited references lay in the areas of modeling approach, outer-loop control, and the experimental systems. For example, Trumper
et al. [13] clearly demonstrate nonlinear step response behaviors when classical linear
control is applied. In Trumper et al., the design work is based on a second-order
model (the authors state that the feedback linearizing concepts extend to the higher
order case, which is also demonstrated in [11]). Their experiment is not a magnetic
bearing, but rather a nonrotating system with the payload suspended by thin exure
brackets that constrain motion to the horizontal plane. Joo and Seu also demonstrate a feedback linearizing control for a nonrotating, single input magnetic suspension system. Their outer loop control approach is based on state feedback,
however, and the feedback instrumentation includes a piezoelectric accelerometer on
the payload [14]. Acceleration feedback is not feasible, however, in a rotating system
like the one described later in this paper. State feedback outer loop control is also
proposed by Charara et al. to control a vertically-oriented rotating shaft, without
gravitational disturbances [15]. The state feedback controller could not be implemented, however, because the higher-order derivatives of position are not measurable. Therefore, a double lead compensator is used. Charara et al. also attempt to use
sliding mode control to improve robustness, but the sampling rate was deemed insucient to yield satisfactory results. Levine et al. propose to solve the state feedback
problem by using a state estimator [16]. Their system uses two transputers to perform the signal conversion and computation tasks, but the authors report that the
experimental results show evidence of external vibrations. As such, performance data
is weakly conclusive. de Queiroz and Dawson give a detailed explanation of the
backstepping design approach, but no experimental evidence is given [17]. Their
voltage control law requires computation of the magnetic ux linkage characteristic,
and a nonlinear auxiliary function to cancel nonlinearity in the current dynamics.
The work presented in this paper, though independently developed, can be considered a marriage of dierent concepts found in the Refs. [1317]. Specically, the
backstepping philosophy is adopted so that control design proceeds in a hierarchical
fashion. Feedback linearizing control is used to compensate for the electromagnetic
nonlinearities in the mechanical time-scale, not the entire system. Therefore, the
feedback linearizing controller is simpler than that proposed in [11], [1417]. Fast
time scale nonlinearities are compensated by high-gain current feedback, resulting in
a much simpler voltage control law than [17]. Finally, the experiments are conducted
on a magnetic bearing supporting a horizontal shaft. The paper is organized as
follows: In Section 2, a fourth-order nonlinear model of bearing dynamics is developed. In Section 3, it is shown that nonlinear relationships between magnetic
force, bearing air gap, and magnet currents can be directly canceled by nonlinear
state feedback by choosing magnet winding currents as the virtual control inputs.

624

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

The actual control inputs are the winding voltages, which are designed to robustly
produce the virtual controls. To avoid the complexity of a full-state feedback linearization control, a hybrid approach is used: feedback-linearization of electromechanical dynamics is coupled with high-gain linear control of electro-magnetic
dynamics. In Section 4, an experimental control system is described. A oating-point
digital signal processor system is used to implement the control algorithm. Controller hardware characteristics and some experimental results are discussed. In
Section 4.8, some directions for further research are discussed.

2. System modeling
Shown in Fig. 1 is a photograph of the disassembled magnetic bearing system
used in the experimental work. The bearing stator winding is housed in the aluminum frame shown on the left side of the photograph. The stator is wound to produce
four electromagnetic pole-pairs. In the conguration shown, the electromagnets
produce two orthogonal axes of force, horizontal and vertical. The aluminum frame
on the right side of the photograph carries two optical sensors that measure vertical
and horizontal motion; a sample sensor is laying on top of the aluminum frame. The
laminated steel rotor is mounted on the shaft that lies between the two aluminum
frames. An aluminum disc has been mounted on the end of the rotor shaft, and the

Fig. 1. Magnetic bearing system components.

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

625

infrared sensors are used to detect the vertical and horizontal displacement of the
disk. The opposite end of the rotor shaft is connected by a exible coupling to a
permanent magnet dc-motor, which is used to turn the rotor shaft.
In this work, the dynamics of each axis are considered symmetrical and uncoupled, so a single-axis model is used for analysis and controller design. A simplied
functional diagram of a single axis is sketched in Fig. 2. Each electromagnet consists
of N turns of conductor wound around the highly permeable magnetic core. The
rotor is modeled as a mass m, and is separated from the magnets by a nominal
distance h, hereafter referred to as the air gap. Deviation of the rotor from the
centered position is denoted by the variable x, which will be referred to as the
position variation. The coil currents are denoted by i1 and i2 , and the input
voltages at the coil terminals are e1 and e2 . A model for the magnetic ux linkage
ki; x in each magnet is given by:



i1
k1 i1 ; x k
; k constant
hx



1
i2
; k constant
k2 i2 ; x k
hx
The coecient k is experimentally determined by least-square t to the inductance of
the bearing. A plot of the inductance as a function of distance between rotor and
magnet is shown in Fig. 3. Measured values are indicated by circles, while the curve
is the tted characteristic.
Further derivation of the single-axis dynamic model is divided into two parts:
electro-magnetic and magneto-mechanical. Electromagnetic equations describe
the dynamic relationship between electrical variables e, i and magnetic ux k, while

Fig. 2. Model for one axis of an active magnetic bearing.

626

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

Fig. 3. Bearing inductance (mH) vs. air gap (mm). Measured (circles), tted (solid curve).

the magneto-mechanical model describes the dynamic relationship between magnetic

ux k and mechanical variables (x).
2.1. Electromagnetic dynamics
Each axis of the magnetic bearing employs a magnet pair, so the electromagnetic
part of the dynamic model has two nonlinear dierential equations of the following
form:
en Rin

d
okn di okn dx
kn in ; x; Rin

;
dt
oin dt ox dt

n 1; 2

where e is winding input voltage, R is winding resistance, i is coil current and ki; x is
magnetic ux linkage.
2.2. Magneto-mechanical dynamics
Mechanical dynamics in a single axis are modeled by:
mx F1 i1 ; x  F2 i2 ; x

where m is the rotor mass, F1 i1 ; x and F2 i2 ; x are the attractive forces produced by
the two magnets. Each of these forces is related to their respective magnetic ux
linkage by the relationship
Z i
o
Fn in ; x
kin ; x di
4
ox 0

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

627

Eqs. (3) and (4) together constitute the magneto-magnetic model of the magnetic
bearing.

2.3. State variable model

Substituting the magnetic ux linkage model (1) into the electro-magnetic model
(2) and magneto-mechanical Eqs. (3) and (4) yields the electro-mechanical model for
the magnetic bearing axis. Assigning the variables y1 x, y2 x_ , the electromechanical model is described by a fourth-order, two-input state variable model:
y_ 1 y2

"
#
k
i21
i22
y_ 2

dt
m h y1 2 h  y1 2

5a

di1
R
1
1
 h y1 i1 h y1 y2 i1 h y1 e1
k
k
dt
di2
R
1
1
 h  y1 i2 h  y1 y2 i2 h  y1 e2
k
k
dt

5b

The rst two lines of the state variable model (5a) describe the change in state of the
mechanical variables (position deviation and rate of position deviation). The function dt represents eects of external disturbances. The third and fourth lines of the
state variable model (5b) describe dynamics of the two winding currents. The
complete model has two inputs e1 and e2 , which are the two winding voltages.

3. Controller design
Nonlinear control of a magnetic suspension system has been studied previously
using the technique of input-state linearization [11], and is also reported in [1316].
That work is based on a third-order, single-input model with the system state consisting of the payload position, velocity, and winding current. The transformed state
variables are the position, velocity, and acceleration of the payload; linearizing
control is theoretically possible so long as the winding current is nonzero. Several
conclusions about the prior works have been applied here in selecting a nonlinear
control scheme for the magnetic bearing. First, direct application of the input-state
linearization technique to the magnetic bearing model (5a) and (5b) would be signicantly more challenging than with the single-input case. In addition, results from
the prior works suggests that a linearizing control law for the full magnetic bearing
model would have a very high computational complexity. The technique used in this
work separates the controller design into parts, resulting in a multiple-loop feedback
system structure [12].

628

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

3.1. First step: Dene pseudo-input for mechanical dynamics

An input-state linearizing controller is designed to stabilize the second-order
nonlinear electromechanical part of the model (5a). The following pseudo-input is
dened for the mechanical dynamics (5a):
"
#
k
i21
i22
u

m h y1 2 h  y1 2

Substituting the pseudo-input u for the appropriate terms of the mechanical dynamics (5a) results in the following input-state linearized air-gap dynamics:
y_ 1 y2
y_ 2 u dt

3.2. Second step: Design stabilizing pseudo-input for input-state linearized mechanical
dynamics
A proportional derivative-type (PD) feedback law is used for the pseudo-input
u to stabilize the dynamics (7) and reduce sensitivity to the disturbance dt:
U s Kp Kd s

X s
1 ss

8a

or, in time-domain:
u su_ Kp x Kd x_
u su_ Kp y1 Kd y2

8b

In Eqs. (8a) and (8b), the coecient s is an instrumentation time constant, which is
designed to be small compared to the ratio Kd =Kp .

3.3. Third step: Design feedback linearizing controllers for winding currents
Implementation of controller (8a) and (8b) means that winding current references
i1ref and i2ref must be specied to satisfy the pseudo-inputs denition (6). There is an
innite number of winding current combinations will meet the denition. Here, a
swapping scheme is used in which only one winding current is nonzero at any
instant in time. The rationale is that the magnetic forces due to winding currents are
opposite in direction (like antagonistic muscles), so minimum power results when
only a single current is nonzero. Reference current i1ref or i2ref is chosen to be nonzero
based on the sign of the pseudo-input u (8b):

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637


u>0)

i1ref

i2ref

i1ref
u0)
i2ref
(
i1ref
u<0)
i2ref

629

p
h y1 mk u
0
0
0

0
h  y1

m
juj
k

Note that the reference currents are zero when the system is at equilibrium u 0.
In contrast, a linear controller requires nonzero bias currents in the magnets.
3.4. Fourth step: Design winding voltages
The current dynamics are described by the nonlinear electrical dynamic model
(8b), with inputs being the two winding voltages el and e2 . Since these dynamics
satisfy the passivity property with respect to the input voltages, a high-gain current
feedback control law is used to specify the winding voltages:
en Kinref  in ;

n 1; 2

10

3.5. Summary
Multiple loops of the control system are illustrated in the control system block
diagram (see Fig. 4. Heavier lines represent vector signals, e.g., two winding currents,
or two winding voltages.) The magnetic bearings mechanical and electrical dynamics
(5a) and (5b) are represented by two separate blocks. Output and inputs of the
mechanical dynamics block are the air gap deviation and winding currents, respectively. Inputs of the electrical dynamics block are the winding voltages. The
outermost loop is the linear feedback control law (8a) and (8b) that species the
pseudo-input u. The middle loop is the nonlinear feedback linearizing control (9),
which transforms the pseudo-input u to the reference currents i1ref and i2ref . Finally,

Fig. 4. Block diagram of the control system for one axis.

630

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

the innermost loop is the high-gain, current feedback voltage controller (10), which
ensures that the actual currents i1 and i2 track the reference currents.

4. Experimental results
A photograph of the experimental bearing system components is shown in Fig. 1.
The bearing stator and rotor are on the left-hand side of the picture, with power
cables for the stator winding at the upper left side. Attached to the end of the rotor
shaft is an aluminum disk, which serves as the position sensor target. The position
sensing system is on the right-hand side of the picture. An unmounted sensor is on
top of the sensor frame, and two mounted sensors are inside the frame. The sensor
mounts are designed for adjustable alignment with the sensor target. Key physical
dimensions and model parameters are given in Table 1.
4.1. Controller implementation
The system controller consists of four major subsystems: sensing and instrumentation, digital controller, power ampliers, and system power supply. The digital
controller is built around an Analog Devices ADSP21020 oating-point DSP. The
outermost loop feedback controller (8a) and (8b) and the feedback linearizing
controller (9) are implemented on the DSP, while the current controller (10) is implemented with analog electronics. Also implemented in the DSP are lowpass lters
for the sampled position sensor signals. The lowpass lters were designed to reduce
instrumentation and quantization noise. Referring to the block diagram in Fig. 4, the
outputs of the feedback linearizing controller (9) are the current references for the
bearing ampliers. In this system, each axis has two winding references, so a total of
four current references are computed. These are converted to analog form by 8-bit
digital-to-analog converters, and serve as reference inputs for innermost feedback
control loops. The system power supply provides 5 V for the DSP, and 12 V for the
analog instrumentation and power ampliers.
The controller algorithms (8a), (8b), (9) are programmed in the C language.
Additional details about the controller hardware and software development are
described below.
Table 1
Parameters of the experimental system
Symbol

Description

Value

Units

m
h
R

Rotor mass
Nominal air gap
Winding resistance
Nominal winding inductance
Magnetic ux parameter
Controller proportional gain
Controller derivative gain

125
1.6
4.75
7.5
2:788
106
9.94
0.17

gram
millimeter
ohm
milliHenry
N-m2 /A2

k
Kp
Kd

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

631

4.2. Controller hardware description

The core microprocessor in the digital control system is a 32-bit oating-point
DSP. Floating point hardware is chosen to eliminate the need for coecient and data
scaling. The processor is the ADSP21020, developed by Analog Devices. Experiments are conducted using the EZLABTM hardware evaluation system, which
includes an in-circuit emulator to aid read-time debugging of the ADSP21020 programs on the actual target system.
The DSP controller executes all instructions within a single 40 ns cycle, and has
special hardware structures to support digital lter implementation. Thus, a 32-bit
oating point realization of a second-order digital lter requires only 28 instruction
cycles. The ADSP21020 also has the capability to execute multiple instructions
within a single cycle, to further reduce computational time. This multi-instruction
per cycle capability is not used in this project.
Interfaces to the bearing position sensors and ampliers are achieved by memorymapped A/D and D/A converters. The input and output converters support 8-bit
wordlength. The signal conversions between analog and digital forms are implemented using Analog Devices AD7769 analog I/O chips. The A/D converters are of
successive approximation type, and complete a conversion in 2.5 ls. Since the DSP
uses 32-bit oating point numerical format in its calculations, the precision of the
signal converter is the dominant component of signal quantization and nite
wordlength eects.
Bearing rotor position is sensed by two infrared optical sensors, whose output
signals are scaled and biased to a 14 V range for the A/D converters. The position
sensors and instrumentation are designed to have a sensitivity of 4 V/mm.
The four bearing ampliers are implemented using APEX PA12 monolithic
power operational ampliers. The ampliers are congured as current ampliers,
and operate from 12 V supplies.

4.3. Controller software development

The C software is developed using the G21k C compiler, which is Analog Devices
implementation of an ANSI standard C compiler with Numerical C and DSP extensions. A 486-type PC is used to develop and compile all program code. After
compilation and linking with hardware architecture denition les and runtime
control les, the complete object code is downloaded to high-speed random access
memory on the EZLABTM evaluation board. The evaluation board supports readonly memory (ROM) storage of program data, but typical ROM memories are too
slow to be used with the high-speed DSP processor.
A few functions that must be executed very quickly are developed in assembly
language. One such function is the lowpass ltering of feedback signals to reduce
instrumentation and quantization noise. A second function is the conversion of 8-bit
wide input and output data (integer format) to the 32-bit wide oating-point format
used for DSP computations.

632

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

The lowpass lters are of second-order, inverse Chebyshev type. The passband
ripple is 1 dB, with a cuto frequency of 1 kHz. The stopband ripple is 20 dB, with a
cuto frequency of 2 kHz. Conversion of the analog lter coecients to discrete-time
values is performed by bilinear transformation, with a sampling frequency of 10
kHz.
The control program is set up as an interrupt service routine that responds to a 10
kHz timer. All signal format conversions, control computations, and storage of
experimental data is performed within the service routine. Experimental data that is
recorded are the position feedback signals and control commands for both axes of
the bearing. The overall sampling frequency used is 10 kHz (period is 100 ls), but all
computations are accomplished in 30 ls. Thus, the sampling frequency could be
easily extended to 30 kHz. (The sampling rate limitation of the signal converter is
400 kHz.) Computation time can be reduced by over 30% by developing all code in
assembly language. The control program can be optimized further by using the
multi-instruction per cycle capability of the ADSP21020. The present computational delay appears to be insignicant for the experiments conducted, so the additional engineering eort to optimize the controller software is not used for this
study.
4.4. System responses
The performance of the nonlinear controller is compared to a linear PD-type
compensator; both controllers are tuned to give similar transient responses for small
position variations (controller gains are listed at the end of Table 1). A linear PIDtype controller has also been used for comparison, but the overall results are not
signicantly better than using the PD controller. The PID controlled system has the
advantage of lower steady-state error, but the stability margin (in the sense of phase
margin) is no better, and the step response tends to suer from a longer settling time.
The longer settling time has also been reported by Trumper et al. [13]. When system
operation is close to the nominal modeled condition, the PID, PD and nonlinear
controllers performed equally well. It has been veried that the linear controllers and
nonlinear controller yield similar responses when the system operation is close to the
nominal condition, i.e., with approximately 6% of the nominal air gap. The nonlinear controller yields better performance than the linear controllers in four other
areas, which are described below.
4.5. Large position variation
After the bearing rotor stabilizes at the nominal position, a step change in reference position is introduced. The reference step change equals 25% of the nominal
air gap. Shown in Fig. 5 is the horizontal motion response under linear control. Unit
of measure on the vertical scale is in millimeters. The initial motion almost settles
around the dashed line labeled stable settle line, but eventually the rotor moves
away and strikes the bearing stator. The horizontal motion response under nonlinear
control is shown in Fig. 6. Static error of the stable response is less than 2% of the

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

633

Fig. 5. Unstable step response to linear control. Reference change is 25% of nominal air gap.

Fig. 6. Stable step response to nonlinear control. Reference change is 25% of nominal air gap.

reference step change. As discussed above, the steady-state error can be reduced by
using a PID type controller in the outer loop, but the settling time tends to be longer.
For this bearing system, the authors also observed that the nonlinear controller is
able to lift the bearing from a resting position on the stator. The range of motion
is 50% of the total range. In contrast, the linear controller is unable to lift the

634

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

Fig. 7. Tracking response under linear control. Reference (dashed), response (solid).

bearing, because the region of asymptotic stability is too small. Under linear control,
the bearing rotor must be manually brought into closer proximity to the design
conditions.
4.6. Sinusoidal reference
In this experiment, a 10 Hz sinusoidal position reference is used. Response under
linear control is shown in Fig. 7. The dashed curve plots the reference signal, and the
solid curve plots the horizontal motion response. Response under nonlinear control
is shown in Fig. 8. The tracking error and phase delay are very small compared to the
response plotted in in Fig. 7.
4.7. Change in loop gain
Gain sensitivity is also examined experimentally. The linear controller remains
stable for gain change between 0.45 and 7.5. The nonlinear controller remains stable
for gain change between 0.048 and 6. Comparing against the linear controller, the
nonlinear controller has an overall range of stable gains that is about 9 times larger.
4.8. Current consumption
Finally, the two controllers are compared on the basis of current consumption.
For the static levitation experiments, the nonlinear controller uses 1.3 A to control

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

635

Fig. 8. Tracking response under nonlinear control. Reference (dashed), response (solid). Compare to
Fig. 7.

all four magnets, while the linear controller uses 2.4 A. The nature of the linear
controller is such that bias currents are required for every magnet winding, even
under equilibrium conditions. Under linear control, the magnet are working in antagonist manner, and the bearing stiness is related to the magnitude of bias currents
[2,4,6]. Analysis of the bearings linearized model also shows that a full-rank controllability matrix exists only in the presence a bias current [11]. In other words, the
linearized model is controllable only if a bias current is present.
In contrast, the proposed nonlinear controller requires no bias currents in the
horizontal axis control, and requires a bias current for only one magnet in the
vertical axis control to overcome gravitational load. For the nonlinear controller,
nonzero currents arise only when the rotor is away from the equilibrium condition.
When the rotor is turning (1800 rpm), the nonlinear controller increases slightly to
1.5 A, but current consumption for the linear controller did not change.

5. Conclusions
A nonlinear controller for a magnetic bearing system has been presented. The
design approach uses feedback linearization and back-stepping concepts. Controller
hardware is designed around a single oating-point DSP. Controller software developed using the C language computes all control functions and data collection
tasks within 30 ls, which is just 30% of the sample period. The DSP has features that

636

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

can further reduce computation time, but those optimization options were not
considered necessary for this work. Experimental results conrm that the overall
system yields excellent performance with respect to static position control, large
position variation, sinusoidal reference tracking, gain margin, and power consumption. A linear controller such as PID or PD yields comparable performance
near the nominal operating condition, but is at a disadvantage in the other four
areas. The work presented shares similarities to several other works [1317], but is a
less complex design overall.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Auburn University Center
for Commercial Development of Space Power and Advanced Electronics, the Centers Industrial Partners, and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors also thank the reviewers for their detailed examination of the
earlier manuscript. Their helpful comments and suggestions have greatly improved
the nal manuscript.

References
[1] Jayawant BV, Sinha PK, Aylwin DG. Feedback control systems for dc electromagnets in passengercarrying vehicles. Int J Control 1976;24:62739.
[2] Humphries RR, Kelm RD, Lewis DW, Allaire PE. Eect of control algorithms on magnetic journal
bearing properties. Trans ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 1986;108:62632.
[3] Masayuki F, Matsumura F, Uchida K. Experiments on the H1 disturbance attenuation control of a
magnetic suspension system. Proc IEEE 29th Conf Decision Control, December 1990. p. 27737.
[4] Bornstein KR. Dynamic load capabilities of active electromagnetic bearings. Trans ASME J Tribol
1991;113:598603.
[5] Maslen E, Hermann P, Scott M. Practical limits to the performance of magnetic bearings: peak force,
slew rate, and displacement sensitivity. Trans ASME J Tribol 1989;111:3316.
[6] Chen HM, Darlow MS. Magnetic bearing with rotating force control. Trans ASME J Tribol
1988;110:1005.
[7] Sinha PK. Electrodynamic suspension: dynamics and control. London, UK: Peter Peregrinus Ltd.;
1987.
[8] Isidori A. Nonlinear control systems: an introduction. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987.
[9] Slotine J-JE, Li W. Applied nonlinear control. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1989.
[10] Kanellkopoulos I, Kokotovic PV, Morse AS. Systematic design of adaptive controllers for feedback
linearizable systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control 1991;36(11):124153.
[11] Hung JY. Nonlinear control of a magnetic levitation system. Proc. IEEE Industrial Electronics
Conference, Kobe, Japan, 1991.
[12] Fan X. Feedback linearizing control of a magnetic bearing. Auburn University MS thesis, 1994.
[13] Trumper DL, Olson SM, Subrahmanyan K. Linearizing control of magnetic suspensions systems.
IEEE Trans Control System Technol 1997;5(4):42738.
[14] Joo S, Seo JH. Design and analysis of nonlinear feedback linearizing control for an electromagnetic
suspension system. IEEE Trans Control System Technol 1997;5(1):13544.
[15] Charara A, De Miras J, Caron B. Nonlinear control of a magnetic levitation system without
premagnetization. IEEE Trans Control System Technol 1996;4(5):51323.

J.Y. Hung et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 621637

637

[16] Levine J, Lottin J, Ponsart J-C. A nonlinear approach to the control of magnetic bearings. IEEE
Trans Control System Technol 1996;4(5):52444.
[17] de Queiroz MD, Dawson DM. Nonlinear control of active magnetic bearings: a backstepping
approach. IEEE Trans Control System Technol 1996;4(5):54552.