2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
Madrid, Spain, October 1-5, 2018
Motion Control of Piezo-Driven Stage Via A Chattering-free Sliding
Mode Controller With Hysteresis Compensation
Yunfeng Fan1 , Yichang He1 , Dingguo Zhang2 and U−Xuan Tan1
Abstract— This paper presents a novel sliding mode con-
troller for trajectory tracking of the piezo-driven stage. The
tracking performance of piezoelectric actuator is mainly af-
fected by the hysteresis nonlinearity. Sliding mode control is a
possible solution to achieve better tracking performance. How-
ever, conventional sliding mode control generates discontinuous
control signal which results in chattering. Hence, the hysteresis
nonlinearity is first compensated with a hysteresis model, and an
uncertainty and disturbance estimator is designed and included
to devise a smooth control action. The stability of the proposed
method is demonstrated via Lyapunov analysis. Both simulation
and experiment are also conducted to verify the effectiveness
of the proposed approach. The results are compared with
a conventional sliding mode controller and a proportional-
integral control with notch filter (PIC-NF).
I. INTRODUCTION
Fast steering mirrors (FSMs) have been widely used in
different applications such as micromanipulation [1], optical
disk driver [2], and microscopy [3]. Most of the FSMs
are driven by piezoelectric actuators due to merits of high
stiffness, high resolution and rapid response [4], [5] when
compared to other actuators. However, there is one major
disadvantage of piezo actuator, which is the hysteresis non-
linearity and it affects the tracking performance significantly.
Research work to address the hysteresis nonlinearity can
be categorized into several groups. One method to alleviate
the hysteresis is to use charge-driven approach [6]. However,
it is seldom used for the complexity in circuit design,
and the cost as compared to voltage amplifiers. Another
category is the feedforward controller which can compen-
sate the hysteresis effect by cascading an inverse hysteresis
model [7]–[11]. To model hysteresis phenomenon, there are
generally two categories in the literature, namely: physical
models and phenomenological models [4]. The difference
between them is: the physical model is generated from the
first principle of physics while the phenomenological model
is to model hysteresis curve without detailed description
of its physical meaning. The commonly used hysteresis
models in the literature are Bouc-Wen model [12], Preisach
model [7], and Prandtl-Ishlinskii (PI) model [13] (which
is based on Prandtl-Ishlinskii (PI) operator). However, the
1 Yunfeng Fan, Yichang He and U-Xuan Tan are with the Pillar
of Engineering Product Development , Singapore University of
Technology and Design, 8 Somapah Road, Singapore 487372, Singapore,
{yunfeng_fan,yichang_he}@mymail.sutd.edu.sg,
uxuan_tan@sutd.edu.sg
2 Dingguo Zhang is with the State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System
and Vibration, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, Shanghai 200240, China, dgzhang@sjtu.edu.cn
978-1-5386-8093-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
open-loop controller is sensitive to the modeling accuracy
and externally environmental variations.
The combination of feedback control and feedforward
compensator is a possible approach to provide good perfor-
mance in the application of piezoelectric driven system by
compensating the hysteresis nonlinearity with feedforward
controller and mitigating the inversion error and uncertainty
with feedback controller. The hysteresis can be partially
compensated by inverse hysteresis model, and the unmodeled
hysteresis is treated as the disturbance term or uncertainty
term. Based on this treatment, the controller is designed
to target good performance and maintain the stability of
the whole system. For instance, the H∞ control [14], the
inversion-based iterative controller [15], model predictive
control [16], and sliding mode control (SMC) [17] are
applied in the piezo-driven systems. In particular, the SMC,
due to its effectiveness and simplicity, becomes a good
choice for dealing with model uncertainty and disturbance by
stressing the system state trajectory to the predefined sliding
surface and keeping it on this surface.
However, the conventional SMC inherently has the chatter-
ing problem because of the discontinuous control action. The
chattering problem may degrade the tracking performance
and even make the system unstable for higher frequency dy-
namics. This makes achieving precise tracking performance
more challenging for the piezo-driven stage with hysteresis
nonlinearity.
In this paper, the control scheme with feedforward con-
troller and feedback controller is used to improve the tracking
performance. There are some works existing in the literature
to combine the feedforward controller and feedback con-
troller to improve the tracking accuracy. Song et al. [18]
have proposed a PD controller with inverse Preisach model
to improve the tracking performance without proving the
stability. Edardar et al. [17] have proposed to hybrid inverse
PI-based hysteresis model and SMC for better tracking result
while the chattering problem of SMC is not addressed. On
the other hand, the uncertainty and disturbance estimator
(UDE) is widely used in recent control design ever since
it is first proposed by Zhong and Ree [19]. Chen et al. [20]
have also used UDE to improve the tracking performance
but a reference model is needed for the design and the
controller is to track the states of the reference model while
we are interested to track the desired trajectory directly. Xu
[21] has proposed an adaptive sliding mode control with
UDE without a reference model, the perturbation estimation
(PE) is needed to estimate the uncertainties, and this will
introduce computational burden and require more resources
6424

(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) The dynamics of a piezo-driven stage is described by a hysteresis
model H and a linear dynamics G, where u(t), h(t), y(t) denote the control
input, hysteresis response, and the response of the stage, respectively. (b)
The control scheme based on an inverse hysteresis model, C is the controller,
and yr (t) is the desired trajectory.
which make it not so ideal for platforms like the FPGA
target.
In this work, we use the SMC as the feedback controller,
an UDE is used directly for lumped uncertainty and dis-
turbance estimation to devise a smooth control action for
avoiding chattering problem. Moreover, a PI-based hysteresis
model is first used in this work to remove the hysteresis
effect as much as possible. The results are compared with a
conventional sliding mode controller and PIC-NF.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows, the
system model is in Section II, where the system dynamics
is introduced with the PI-based hysteresis modeling and its
inversion. In Section III, the control is designed and the sta-
bility is analyzed via Lyapunov technique. The experimental
results and conclusions are given in Section IV and Section
V, respectively.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
The dynamics model of a piezo-driven stage which in-
cludes the hysteresis nonlinearity and mechanism dynamics
can be modelled as follows:
M ÿ(t) +Cẏ(t) + Ky(t) = KDH[u](t) + d1 (t)
where y(t) is the displacement of the system, u(t) is the con-
trol input. M,C, K, D denote the mass, damping coefficient,
stiffness, and piezoelectric coefficient while H[u](t) repre-
sents the hysteresis nonlinearity, and d1 (t) is the unmodeled
dynamics and external disturbance. Fig. 1(a) illustrates the
dynamics of the piezo-driven stage, where H denotes the
hysteresis nonlinearity and G is the linear dynamics.
To facilitate the control design, the dynamics model (1)
of the piezo-driven stage is rewritten into the form:
ÿ(t) + 2εωn ẏ(t) + ωn2 y(t) = Dωn2 H[u](t) + d2 (t)
where ωn is the natural frequency and ε is the damping ratio.
Since hysteresis nonlinearity is a complex nonlinear be-
havior, in order to reduce the complexity during the con-
troller design and reach precise tracking result, we adopt
the approach shown in Fig. 1(b) to achieve good tracking
performance in the application of the piezo-driven stage.
In this method, a hysteresis inversion is first employed and
cascaded in the controller loop to eliminate the hysteresis
effect. With this inversion, the system dynamics shown in
Fig. 1(b) becomes as
ÿ(t) + 2εωn ẏ(t) + ωn2 y(t) = Dωn2 u(t) + d2 (t) (3)
In this paper, the following assumption about d(t) is
introduced.
Assumption 1: The lumped disturbance, d(t), described in
(3) is bounded and can be described as:
|d(t)| ≤ ∆ (4)
where ∆ > 0.
The control objective of this work is to design the control
input u(t) such that the tracking error can asymptotically
converges to zero with the help of the hysteresis inversion.
A. PI hysteresis model and its inversion
In this section, the details of hysteresis model H based
on PI operator and its analytical inversion H −1 are given.
Like all other PI-based methods to model hysteresis, the PI
operator is used and defined as follows:
h(t) = Hr [u, h0 ](t)
= max{u(t) − r, min[u(t) + r, h(t − T )]} (5)
where h(t) ∈ R is the response of PI operator, u(t) ∈ R is
the control input, r ∈ R and T ∈ R denote the threshold
of PI operator and sampling time, respectively. The initial
consistency condition of (5) is defined similarly as
h(0) = max {u(0) − r, min[u(0) + r, h0 ]} (6)
and h0 is defined as 0 usually.
Through summing a few PI operators with different thresh-
olds and weights, the basic PI operator (5) can be extended
to model complex hysteresis behavior, and the generalized
form is given by
h(t) = ~wTh H~r [u,~h0 ](t) (7)
(1)
where w~ h = [wh1 , wh2 , · · · , whn ]T ∈ Rn is the weight vector of
PI operators; ~r = [r1 , r2 , · · · , rn ] ∈ Rn is the threshold vector
of PI operators where 0 < r1 < r2 < · · · < rn ≤ umax /2.
The key idea behind inverse compensator is to construct
the control input u(t) with the given desired output h(t).
To compensate the hysteresis given by (7), the inversion
is generated and cascaded with (7) to linearize hysteresis
nonlinearity [10], [22], [23]
u = ~w0T
h H~r0 [h, u0 ](t) (8)
(2) with
1
w0h0 = ;
wh0
−whi
w0hi =    , i = 1, ..., n;
∑ij=0 wh j ∑i−1
j=0 wh j
6425
 i
ri0 = the assumption in [19], a signal can be recovered through a
∑ wh j (ri − r j ), r0 = 0; i = 0, ..., n; low-pass filter which has the unity gain and zero phase shift
j=0
over the frequency spectrum of d(t) and zero gain over the
i n remaining frequency spectrum.
h0i0 = ∑ wh j hi0 + ∑ wh j h j0 , i = 1, 2, ..., n. (9) With this technique, the lumped disturbances and uncer-
j=0 j=i+1 tainties d(t) is estimated as
III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN ˆ = g f (t) ∗ d(t)
d(t) (18)
In this section, the sliding mode control with the uncer-
tainty and disturbance estimator is designed for trajectory where g f (t) is the impulse response of G f (s) and G f (s)
tracking problem stated in Section II and the stability is satisfies that it is a strictly proper low-pass filter with
analyzed through Lyapunov analysis. unity steady-state gain and zero phase difference over the
To facilitate the controller design, the system dynamics (3) spectrum of d(t) and zero gain over the remaining frequency
is reformulated as spectrum,“*" denotes the convolution operator. With this
operation, the signal d(t) is well represented without losing
ÿ(t) + a1 ẏ(t) + a0 y(t) = b0 (u(t) + d(t)). (10) ˆ in (14) results in
any information. Replacing d(t) with d(t)
It is obvious that the term d(t) is bounded under the ˆ
Ṡ(t) = −ηS(t) + b0 (d(t) − d(t))
assumption 1. ˜
= −ηS(t) + b0 d(t) (19)
First, the tracking error is defined as
˜ denotes the estimation error using UDE tech-
where d(t)
e(t) = y(t) − yr (t) (11) nique, and that it is bounded.
where y(t) is the response of the piezo-driven stage, yr (t) Since d(t) is estimated by (18), (19) is reformulated as
denotes the desired trajectory. Ṡ(t) = −ηS(t) + b0 (g−1 ˆ ˆ
f (t) ∗ d(t) − d(t)). (20)
With the defined tracking error, a PD-type sliding surface
is defined as ˆ can be derived as
Therefore, d(t)
S(t) = ė(t) + λ e(t) (12) ˆ = g f (t) ∗ [Ṡ(t) + ηS(t) + b0 d(t)].
b0 d(t) ˆ (21)
where λ > 0 is the control gains. By choosing the following first-order low-pass filter
Taking the first derivative of S(t), we can get
1
G f (s) = (22)
Ṡ(t) = ë(t) + λ ė(t) τs + 1
= ÿ(t) − ÿr (t) + λ (ẏ(t) − ẏr (t)). (13) where τ is the time constant to determine the frequency
ˆ is finally represented as
spectrum, d(t)
Substituting (10) into (13) yields  Z t 
ˆ 1
Ṡ(t) =b0 (u(t) + d(t)) + (λ − a1 )ẏ(t) − a0 y(t) d(t) = S(t) + η S(ε)dε . (23)
τb0 0
− ÿr (t) − λ ẏr (t). (14) Therefore, the final control action is obtained
By ignoring the lumped disturbance term d(t) in (14), the u(t) = ueq (t) + un (t)
equivalent control ueq (t) can be obtained easily as proposed 1
in [24] = [ÿr (t) + λ ẏr (t) + (a1 − λ )ẏ(t) + a0 y(t) − ηS(t)]
b0
1 1
 Z t 
ueq (t) = [ÿr (t) + λ ẏr (t) + (a1 − λ )ẏ(t) + a0 y(t) − ηS(t)] − S(t) + η S(ε)dε . (24)
b0 τb0 0
(15)
where η > 0 is the control gain. Theorem 1: For the system described by equation (3),
To devise the robust controller, a commonly used approach with the sliding surface (12) and tracking error (11), if the
is to augment the equivalent control ueq (t) with a discon- controller (24) is employed, the tracking error of position
tinuous switching control un (t). The role of discontinuous (11) will converge to zeros asymptotically.
switching control un (t) is to force the state of the linear Proof: To demonstrate the stability of the proposed
dynamics to reach the defined sliding surface and keep on method, a Lyapunov function candidate is adopted as fol-
this surface. Hence, the overall control action is derived as: lows:
1
V (t) = S2 (t). (25)
u(t) = ueq (t) + un (t). (16) 2
Taking the first-order derivative of (25) and using (19)
To handle the lumped disturbances d(t) in (10), one
approach to chose control term un (t) is given by V̇ (t) = S(t)Ṡ(t)
ˆ ˜
= S(t)(−ηS(t) + d(t))
un (t) = −d(t). (17)
˜
≤ −η|S(t)|2 + |S(t)||d(t)|
The UDE here is to estimate the lumped disturbances and
ˆ through a low-pass filter. Based on
uncertainties d(t) as d(t) ≤ 0. (26)

6426
 ˆ → 0 asymptotically as t → ∞,
Since from (18) to (24), d(t) 10 Experiment

Angular Dis ( µ rad)

Control input 500
which means S(t) → 0 asymptotically as t → ∞. This implies 8
Model

Voltage (v)
V̇ (t) < 0. 6 0
4
-500
2
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time (s) Time (s)
In this section, we first demonstrate the experiment setup
which is used to verify the feasibility of proposed method. (a) (b)
Then, the hysteresis modeling result is illustrated to model Fig. 3. (a) Control input for piezo-driven stage; (b) Hysteresis modeling
the hysteresis nonlinearity. Controller parameters are selected result via PI-based hysteresis model.
and analyzed, and the tracking experiments are conducted to
show its ability for trajectory tracking application.
From: u1 To: y1
50
A. Experimental Setup

Magnitude (dB)
To verify the effectiveness of proposed method, Fig. 2 0
illustrates the schematic diagram of experimental setup and
Experimental Response
experiments have been conducted on a Physik Instrumente Identified Dynamics
-50
S-340 piezo-driven stage. This stage is driven by the E-505 0

piezo amplifier module (Physik Instrumente) with a gain of

Phase (deg)
-180

10. The output is measured by a high-resolution capacitive -360

sensor (E-509 from Physik Instrumente). The whole system -540

is controlled by the cRIO-9035 (National Instrument) and -720

100 101 102 103 104
the sampling rate is 5 kHz. Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 4. The bode plot of identified dynamics and real data-driven result.
ŽŶƚƌŽů ůĞƌ ƌŝ ǀĞƌ
^ͲϯϰϬ

chosen and the threshold vector is chosen as ~r = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4].

ĐZ/KͲϵϬϯϱ ^ĞŶƐŽƌ
Fig. 2. The schematic diagram of experimental setup to verify the proposed
approach.
To quantify the tracking performance, the root-mean-
square error (RMSE) and the maximum absolute error over
stroke length (Erm ) are utilized in this paper
s by
∑Ni=1 (ei )2
RMSE = (27)
N s + 1453s + 9.916e05
max|ei |
Erm = × 100%
stroke length
where N is the total number of data.
B. Hysteresis model
To identify the parameters of PI-based hysteresis model, a
low-frequency signal is used to excite the piezo-driven stage
(S-340 in this paper) because the effect of linear dynamics
can be ignored in this condition. The input control is chosen
as
u(t) = 4e−0.13t [cos(3πte−0.09t − 2π) + 1.0] + 2.
The result is shown in Fig. 3(a). The response of S-340
is measured by the high-resolution capacitive sensor and the
data with control input are stored simultaneously into the
cRIO-9035. For modeling the hysteresis, five PI operators are
The weight vector of PI hysteresis model is identified using
MATLAB lsqcurve f it method and the result is shown in Fig.
3(b). The parameters of weight vector is given here ~wh =
[0.5723, 0.2650, 0.0218, 0.0010, 0.0012].
C. Control Parameters
The system is identified using the dataset {H[u](t), y(t)}.
The swept sinusoidal waveform is generated as the excitation
input. The collected dataset is stored and loaded into the
Matlab for system identification. The identified result is given
1.02e06
G(s) = 2 . (30)
Fig. 4 shows comparison of the bode plot of identified
system dynamics and the real experiment result. It can be
(28)
seen that the identified model can model the actual dynamics
well up to 1165 rad/s.
With the identified model and the proposed method, there
are some parameters like the filter time constant τ, the control
gain of sliding surface function k, and the control gain of
switch function η to be determined. In order to determine
these parameters, we conducted some simulations to show
the effect of these parameters on the tracking performance.
In all the simulations, a sinusoidal signal is employed as the
excitation.
(29)
1) Selection of control gain λ : To demonstrate the effect
of λ , different values of λ , including 18, 118, 238, are tested
in simulation for which the result is illustrated in Fig. 5(a).
In this condition, τ and η are fixed with 8T (where T is the
sampling time) and 600, respectively. It is notable that the

6427
 0.06 160

Angular Dis ( µ rad)

Tracking error λ = 18 λ =118 λ =238 200 140
0.04 120
100
80
0.02 0 60
0.6 0.7
0
-0.02 -200
ref Proposed SMC PIC-NF
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (a)

τ = 8T τ = 20T τ = 50T Proposed SMC PIC-NF

Error ( µ rad)
10
Tracking error

0.05
0
0
-10
-0.05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s)
Time (s)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 6. Tracking sinusoidal signal. (a) Reference and tracking results of
different controllers. (b) Tracking errors with proposed method, conventional
0.1 η = 10 η = 100 η = 600
Tracking error

SMC, and PIC-NF method.

0
-0.1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time (s)
(c)
Fig. 5. Simulation plots to show the parameters effect on tracking
performance. (a) Tracking error with different control gain λ . (b) Tracking
error with different filter time constant τ. (c) Tracking error with different
η.
parameter λ determines the speed to reach the steady state
and the tracking error. The smaller the λ , the longer it needs
approach to the steady state and the larger the tracking error
would be. However, the parameter λ cannot be too large,
otherwise, the system will become unstable.
2) Selection of filter time constant τ: To reveal the effect
of the filter time constant τ on the tracking performance,
with λ = 238 and η = 600, the time constant τ is tested
with different values depending on the sampling time T.
Fig. 5(b) shows the tracking error versus the value of τ,
the smaller the τ, the better the tracking performance. It
should be noticed that the τ cannot be too small for the filter
would fail to reject high frequency noise, which will degrade
the performance. Of course, we can increase the sampling
frequency to partially avoid this problem but this is limited
to the hardware as the sampling frequency is bounded.
3) Selection of η: With τ = 8T and λ = 238, the parame-
ter η is tested with 10, 100, and 600. The result is plotted in
Fig. 5(c). It’s the same with the parameter λ , the bigger value
will introduce better performance. To maintain the stability
of the system, it should be chosen by trial-and-error in real
experiment.
D. Tracking Performance
With the parameters tested in Section IV-C, k = 238,
1
λ = 600, and τ = 8T are used for the proposed method.
The tracking performance of the proposed method is verified
through experiments and compared with a proportional-
integral controller with notch filter (PIC-NF) and the con-
ventional SMC with PI inversion.
First, to show its ability to track sinusoidal signal, a 5-
Hz reference position trajectory with 167 µrad amplitude
as shown in Fig. 6(a) is utilized. The tracking errors pro-
duced by the proposed method (SMC-UDE with hysteresis
inversion), conventional SMC with PI hysteresis inversion,
and PIC-NF are depicted in Fig. 6(b) . It is obvious that
the proposed method outperforms PIC-NF and conventional
SMC with PI hysteresis inversion. The RMSEs and Erm s
are 0.67 µrad and 0.38% for SMC-UDE with PI hysteresis
inversion, 4.63 µrad and 2.88% for conventional SMC with
PI hysteresis inversion, 9.50 µrad and 4.96% for PIC-NF.
The multiple-frequency signal is also utilized to verify the
ability of controller for tracking. The result is shown in Fig.
7(a) and the tracking error in Fig. 7(b). The RMSEs and Erm s
are 0.37 µrad and 0.26% for SMC-UDE with PI hysteresis
inversion, 3.48 µrad and 2.93% for conventional SMC with
PI hysteresis inversion, 5.64 µrad and 3.25% for PIC-NF.
A summary is tabulated in Table I for comparison, where
different trajectories are utilized to verify the performance of
proposed method. It can be seen that the proposed method
provides superior performance than the others. The tracking
performance becomes worse when the frequency increased,
this may be caused by two reasons: the modeling accuracy
and the sensor noise.
Moreover, the control action un (v) is shown in Fig. 8
for both the sinusoidal tracking (Fig. 8(a)) and multiple-
frequency tracking (Fig. 8(b)). It can be clearly seen that
the conventional SMC produces discontinuous action while

6428
 TABLE I
0.1
P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT TRAJECTORIES UNDER 0.05 Proposed
DIFFERENT CONTROLLERS .
0
-0.05

u n (v)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Motion type Indices PIC-NF SMC Proposed
0.02 SMC
RMSE (µrad) 4.09 0.68 0.15
single frequency 0
Erm (%) 1.95 0.35 0.21
(1 Hz)
-0.02
RMSE (µrad) 9.50 4.63 0.67 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
single frequency
Erm (%) 4.96 2.88 0.38
(5 Hz) Time (s)
RMSE (µrad) 33.93 6.99 1.95 (a)
single frequency
Erm (%) 15.66 3.19 1.01 -0.1
(10 Hz)
RMSE (µrad) 5.64 3.48 0.37 -0.2 Proposed
multiple frequency
Erm (%) 3.25 2.93 0.26

u n (v)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.02 SMC
Angular Dis ( µ rad)

200
120 0
100
80 -0.02
60 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 40
20
Time (s)
0.5 0.6
(b)
-200 ref Proposed SMC PIC-NF
Fig. 8. Control action un (v) with proposed method and conventional SMC
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
for (a) sinusoidal trajectory tracking and (b) multiple-frequency trajectory
Time (s) tracking.
(a)

Proposed SMC PIC-NF for trajectory tracking.

Error ( µ rad)

10
0
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Time (s)
(b)
Fig. 7. Tracking results of multiple-frequency signal. (a) Reference and
tracking results with different controllers. (b) Tracking errors under different
approaches.
the proposed method generate continuous action which can
eliminate the chattering problem.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
A chattering-free sliding mode control based controller has
been proposed in this paper for precise motion tracking in
the application of the piezo-driven stage. The concept is to
linearize hysteresis nonlinearity first with a rate-independent
PI-based hysteresis model and the unmodeled dynamics and
external disturbances are alleviated by the sliding mode
control (SMC) with a uncertainty and disturbance estimator
(UDE). The UDE used here is to devise a smooth control
to avoid the chattering phenomenon where the conventional
SMC usually meets. The stability of the proposed method
is demonstrated via Lyapunov analysis. The guideline for
parameter selection is illustrated through the simulation
and the effectiveness of the proposed approach is verified
through the experiment. The experiment results show that
the proposed method surpass the PIC-NF controller and the
conventional SMC with PI hysteresis compensator on the
trajectory tracking. The proposed method can also be easily
extended to other smart materials with hysteretic behavior
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Wang and Q. Xu, “Design and Precision Position/Force Control of
0.8 1 a Piezo-Driven Microinjection System,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1744–1754, Aug. 2017.
[2] W. Yang, S.-Y. Lee, and B.-J. You, “A piezoelectric actuator with a
motion-decoupling amplifier for optical disk drives,” Smart Materials
and Structures, vol. 19, no. 6, p. 065027, Jun. 2010.
[3] H. T. H. Chen, W. Ng, and R. L. Engelstad, “Finite element analysis
of a scanning x-ray microscope micropositioning stage,” Review of
Scientific Instruments, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 591–594, Jan. 1992.
[4] G.-Y. Gu, L.-M. Zhu, C.-Y. Su, H. Ding, and S. Fatikow, “Modeling
and Control of Piezo-Actuated Nanopositioning Stages: A Survey,”
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 313–332, Jan. 2016.
[5] S. Devasia, E. Eleftheriou, and S. O. R. Moheimani, “A Survey of
Control Issues in Nanopositioning,” IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 802–823, Sep. 2007.
[6] J. Minase, T.-F. Lu, B. Cazzolato, and S. Grainger, “A review,
supported by experimental results, of voltage, charge and capacitor
insertion method for driving piezoelectric actuators,” Precision Engi-
neering, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 692–700, Oct. 2010.
[7] D. Hughes and J. T. Wen, “Preisach modeling of piezoceramic and
shape memory alloy hysteresis,” Smart Materials and Structures,
vol. 6, no. 3, p. 287, 1997.
[8] K. K. Leang, Q. Zou, and S. Devasia, “Feedforward control of
piezoactuators in atomic force microscope systems,” IEEE Control
Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 70–82, Feb. 2009.
[9] O. Aljanaideh, M. A. Janaideh, S. Rakheja, and C.-Y. Su, “Compen-
sation of rate-dependent hysteresis nonlinearities in a magnetostrictive
actuator using an inverse PrandtlâĂŞIshlinskii model,” Smart Materi-
als and Structures, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 025027, Feb. 2013.
[10] U.-X. Tan, W. T. Latt, F. Widjaja, C. Y. Shee, C. N. Riviere, and
W. T. Ang, “Tracking control of hysteretic piezoelectric actuator
using adaptive rate-dependent controller,” Sensors and Actuators A:
Physical, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 116–123, Mar. 2009.
[11] Y. Fan and U.-X. Tan, “A feedforward controller with neural-network
based rate-dependent model for piezoelectric-driven mechanism,” in
Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2016 IEEE International Confer-
ence on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1558–1563.
[12] M. Ismail, F. Ikhouane, and J. Rodellar, “The Hysteresis Bouc-Wen
Model a Survey,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 161–188, Jun. 2009.

6429
[13] W. T. Ang, P. K. Khosla, and C. N. Riviere, “Feedforward con-
troller with inverse rate-dependent model for piezoelectric actuators in
trajectory-tracking applications,” IEEE/ASME transactions on mecha-
tronics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 134–142, 2007.
[14] P. Liu, Z.-Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, J.-Q. Mao, and K.-M. Zhou, “Modeling
and h∞ Robust Control of a Smart Structure with Rate-dependent
Hysteresis Nonlinearity,” International Journal of Automation and
Computing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 51–58, Feb. 2014.
[15] Y. Wu and Q. Zou, “Iterative control approach to compensate for the
hysteresis and the vibrational dynamics effects of piezo actuators,” in
American Control Conference, 2006. IEEE, 2006, pp. 6–pp.
[16] Y. Cao, L. Cheng, X. B. Chen, and J. Y. Peng, “An Inversion-Based
Model Predictive Control With an Integral-of-Error State Variable for
Piezoelectric Actuators,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 895–904, Jun. 2013.
[17] M. Edardar, Xiaobo Tan, and H. K. Khalil, “Design and
Analysis of Sliding Mode Controller Under Approximate Hysteresis
Compensation,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 598–608, Mar. 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6840983/
[18] G. Song, J. Zhao, X. Zhou, and J. DeAbreu-Garcia, “Tracking Control
of a Piezoceramic Actuator With Hysteresis Compensation Using
Inverse Preisach Model,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 198–209, Apr. 2005.
[19] Q.-C. Zhong and D. Rees, “Control of Uncertain LTI Systems Based
on an Uncertainty and Disturbance Estimator,” Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 126, no. 4, p. 905, 2004.
[20] J. Chen, B. Ren, and Q.-C. Zhong, “UDE-Based Trajectory Tracking
Control of Piezoelectric Stages,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 6450–6459, Oct. 2016.
[21] Q. Xu, “Precision motion control of piezoelectric nanopositioning
stage with chattering-free adaptive sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.
238–248, Jan 2017.
[22] K. Kuhnen and P. Krejci, “Inverse control of systems with hysteresis
and creep,” IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications, vol.
148, no. 3, pp. 185–192, May 2001.
[23] U.-X. Tan, Win Tun Latt, Cheng Yap Shee, C. Riviere, and Wei Tech
Ang, “Feedforward Controller of Ill-Conditioned Hysteresis Using
Singularity-Free Prandtl-Ishlinskii Model,” IEEE/ASME Transactions
on Mechatronics, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 598–605, Oct. 2009.
[24] P. S. Londhe, D. D. Dhadekar, B. M. Patre, and L. M. Waghmare, “Un-
certainty and disturbance estimator based sliding mode control of an
autonomous underwater vehicle,” International Journal of Dynamics
and Control, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1122–1138, Dec. 2017.

6430