See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331606897

Optimal Control for Magnetic Levitation System Using H-J-B Equation Based
LQR

Conference Paper · June 2018

DOI: 10.1109/EPETSG.2018.8658765

CITATIONS READS

6 4,334

3 authors:

Ritesh Raj Subrat Swain

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra
14 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 360 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sudhansu Mishra
Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra
116 PUBLICATIONS 1,125 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ritesh Raj on 11 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimal Control for Magnetic Levitation System
using H-J-B equation based LQR
Ritesh Raj Mr. Subrat Kumar Swain
Department of E.E.E., Asst. Prof., Department of E.E.E.,
Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, India Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Abstract— This paper deals with the designing of linear
optimal controller for Magnetic Levitation system (Maglev) in
both simulation and real time. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman
(HJB) equation is employed to design the closed loop optimal
control of infinite-time as well as finite-time Linear Quadratic
Regulator (LQR) system with quadratic performance measure
or index. The objective of the proposed controller is to stabilize
the Maglev system and to control the ball position for tracking
the desired ball position. The two different cases of weights of
the LQR controller are selected on the trial and error basis for
studying and improving the time response performance of the
system. The performance comparison between infinite-time
LQR and finite-time LQR is also investigated in both
simulation and real time. To validate the effectiveness of
proposed controller, it is compared with the classical PID
controller between their relative time response and
performance indices of the system. In the future, a detailed
study of robustness in the presence of model uncertainties or
external disturbance will be incorporated as a scope of further
research.
Keywords—Optimal Control; LQR; HJB equation; Magnetic
Levitation (Maglev); Finite-Time LQR; Infinite-Time LQR
I. INTRODUCTION
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) is a technique used to
suspend an object without any support except magnetic
fields. The effect of gravitational acceleration or any other
acceleration can be counteract using Magnetic force. This
technology is receiving wide attention as it is a non contact
mechanical technology which results in zero friction losses
and higher energy efficiency. This causes low cost of
maintenance. In future, this technology can be applied in
non-contact structures, non-contact actuators, precision
engineering, transportation, satellite launching, magnetic
suspension [1], transit system [2], etc. There are several
engineering applications for this technology such as in
molten metal levitation in induction furnaces, high-speed
maglev trains, water transport, magnetically suspended wind
tunnel, vibration isolation of sensitive machinery, magnetic
bearings and high-precision platforms, etc [3], [4]. For such
a non-linear and unstable system, it is preferred to design a
proper controller for suspending a metal object in air space
with the support of an electromagnetic force.
There are two particular ways for designing Maglev
system. One is based on electromagnetic attractive force and
another one is eddy current magnetic repulsive force [5].
978-1-5386-4769-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Dr. Sudhansu Kumar Mishra
Asst. Prof., Department of E.E.E.,
Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
The Maglev system experimental set-up in this paper is
based on electromagnetic force which is manufactured by
Feedback Instruments Ltd [6].
Several methods enumerating the process of designing
different types of classical, optimal, linear, non-linear,
digital, intelligent controllers for Maglev system has been
explored in the literature. In [3], authors have designed and
also compared a linear and non-linear controller by using
feedback linearization method for Maglev system. The
classical PID controller by Ziegler–Nichols tuning method
and optimized tuning of PID controller based on LQR and
Grey Wolf Optimization method are described in [7], [8] for
Maglev system in MATLAB simulink environment. The 2-
DOF PID, TID and I-TD controllers are also designed for
Maglev system in simulink and real time in [9], [10]. The
fractional order PID controller for Maglev system is
presented in [11] with the real time implementation. In [12],
digital controller for Maglev system is designed using Fuzzy
logic. The sliding mode controller technique has been
presented in [4], [13], [14] using different algorithms. The
non linear optimal controller of infinite-time LQR using
HJB equation is designed for 3rd order Maglev system and
simulated in [15].
An optimal controller is designed in this paper for
linearised 2nd order Maglev system. Optimal controller of
continuous-time is proposed for both infinite-time and
finite-time. For obtaining the optimal closed loop control of
Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) system, the Hamilton-
Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation and optimality principle is
used. Bellman's optimality principle states that any portion
of the optimal trajectory is optimal [16]. This derives the
control policies which will simultaneously stabilize the open
loop operation, appropriately integrate the nonlinear
elements of the system and at the same time extremise the
selected performance criterion. Here, the performance index
is quadratic and based on energy consumption. Hence, the
control law gradually minimizes the energy. This proposed
controller also provides dynamic optimization to plant under
dynamic condition.
The organization of the paper is as given below. Section
II deals with the Maglev system set-up with schematic
diagram and mathematical modeling of the system. The
transfer function and state space equations of the linearised
Maglev system is also provided in section II. Then the
problem formulation of optimal LQR controller using HJB
equation for both infinite-time and finite-time is stated in
section III. In section IV, the experimental result of the
controller with the system in simulink and real time are
shown. Section IV is also about the detailed performance
comparison of the proposed controller along with the Z-N
tuned PID controller. Finally, the conclusion part is
presented in section V and followed by the references.
II. THE MAGNETIC LEVITATION SYSTEM
A. System Description
The experimental set-up of Maglev system is
manufactured by Feedback Instruments Ltd [6]. This control
system set-up provides the platform to effectively designed
different controller and performs testing in real time using
Matlab and Simulink environment. The Maglev control
system set-up comprising of both mechanical and electrical
units is presented in figure 1.
Fig. 1. Maglev control system set-up
The Mechanical unit of this system includes an
electromagnetic coil with heat sink, two infra-red sensors,
connection-interface panel and a suspended object that is a
steel ball. The coil is mounted on top of the mechanical unit
to generate electromagnetic force due to its current. This
force attracts the object and counteracts the effects of the
gravitational acceleration which cause the object to be
balanced on the air. The ball position and coil current is
measured by two infra-red sensors. The electrical unit also
plays essential role in Maglev control. They allow the
transferring of measured signals to the computer via an
input/output card. The Analogue Control Interface transfers
the control signals from the PC to Maglev and back. The
schematic diagram of Maglev plant is represented in figure
2 [9].
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of Maglev system
B. System Modelling and State Space Equations
The mechanical-electrical model of Maglev is shown in
figure 3 [6], whose model equations are nonlinear.
Fig. 3. Maglev phenomenological model
The nonlinear model equation of the Maglev system [6]
relating the coil current i and the ball position x is following:
= − (1)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity, m is the mass of
ball and k is a constant whose value depends on the
parameters of coil. The Maglev is operational with an
internal control loop which provides the proportional current
to the control voltage. Hence, the relation between control
voltage u that is produced for control purpose and the coil
current i [6] is given as:
= (2)
where k1 is control voltage to coil current gain.
This nonlinear model equation has to be linearised
around the equilibrium point x0, i0 [9] for analysis and
controller design purposes. Hence, the linearised model
transfer function of Maglev system [6], [9] is given below:
∆ .
. .= ( ) = = (3)
∆
where xv is the sensor output (in volts) and u is the control
voltage.
Maglev is a single input single output (SISO) plant in
which control voltage u is the control input signal and ball
position x is the plant output. The state space matrices in
controllable canonical form can be obtained from (3) and
are given by:
0 1
= (4)
2180 0
0
= (5)
−3518.85
= [1 0] (6)
 = [0] (7) ∗( )=− ∗( ( ), ) (16)

Hence, the state space equations can be written using Using optimal control (16) in Hamiltonian function (15),
(4), (5), (6) and (7) as: optimized Hamiltonian (17) is obtained.

= ∗( ( ), ∗( ), ∗
(8) , )
1
= 2180 − 3518.85 (9) = ( ) ( ) – ∗ ∗
2
= (10) ∗
+ ( ) (17)
where x1 is the state of ball position x , x2 is the state of coil
current i, u is the control input signal and y is the output of The H-J-B equation [17] is represented as
the Maglev plant i.e. ball position x.
∗ ∗( ( ), ∗( ), ∗
+ , )= 0 (18)
III. OPTIMAL CONTROLLER DESIGN
The optimal control design derives a control law or with boundary condition:
signals which cause the dynamical system to achieve a
target or chase the trajectory and also extremize a ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
( , )= (19)
performance index at the same time [17]. Considering the
Maglev plant dynamics in state variable form which is where F(tf) is expressed as:
described in (8), (9) and (10), the general form of
performance index [17] in terms of the terminal cost 1 0
function S(X(tf),tf), states X(t) and controls u(t) is = (20)
0 0
represented as:
Since, the performance index J (11) is a quadratic
= , + ( ( ), ( ), ) (11) function of the state, therefore the solution can be assumed
as:
where
∗( ( ), ) = ( ) ( ) ( ) (21)
, = (12)
where P(t) is a Riccati coefficient matrix to be determined
( ( ), ( ), ) = which satisfies P(t) = P(t)T > 0 for all values of t.
( ) ( ) + ( ) ( ) (13)
= = ( ) ( ) ( ) (22)
In (11), to and tf are initial and final points respectively.
F is a real, positive semi-definite, symmetric matrix in (12). = = ( ) ( ) (23)
In (13), Q and R are weighting matrices such that Q = QT ≥
0 and R = RT > 0. One of the algorithms for selecting
weights matrices for optimal LQR is presented in [18]. But Therefore, from (19), (20) and (21); the value of P(t)
in this paper, the selection of Q and R weights matrices is obtained at t = tf is
done on the trial and error basis.
1 0
( )= (24)
1 0 0 0
= (14)
0 0
Using assumed solution of performance index (21) with
Considering R = 1 and Q as (14), the first step for (22) and (23) in H-J-B equation (18), following equation is
optimization to form Hamiltonian function H [17] is given obtained which is the Matrix Differential Riccati Equation
as: (MDRE) [17].

( ( ), ( ), ∗
, ) = ( ( ), ( ), ) ( ) = −[ ( ) ] − [ ( )] − [ ]

+ ∗ ( ( ), ) ( )+ ( ) (15) +[ ( ) ( )] (25)

For optimization of H w.r.t. u(t), the necessary condition Then using (23) in (16), the optimal control input signal
is (∂H/∂u)=0 which leads to in terms of voltage is obtained as
 ∗( )= − ( ) ∗
( )
The basic block diagram of closed loop optimal LQR
controller with Maglev system is shown in figure 4 in which
K = {R-1 BT P(t)} and Nbar is the scale factor. Nbar is used to
decrease the steady-state error using knowledge of the plant
model and full-state feedback system. The value obtained
for Nbar is equal to -1.1764 by using Maglev plant dynamics
and considered weighting matrix (14) of the feedback
system.
(26) Hence, the figure 5 clearly shows that the terminal cost
function with the terminating condition is achieved and the
figure 6 and 7 shows that the performance index in terms of
states and controls is minimized respectively during the
interval of interest. From figure 7, it can be inferred that the
output tracks the reference trajectory when the control input
u*(t) approaches near to zero.

Fig. 4. Basic block diagram of closed loop optimal LQR

controller with Maglev Plant

A. Finite-time LQR
The main purpose of finite-time optimal LQR is to hold
the states X(t) near to the zero value during the period of Fig. 6. Plot of Optimized state vector X*(t) (in Volts)
time of interest and at the final time tf. Here, the finite-time
interval is considered as [t0 , tf] = [0, 2].
The Riccati coefficient matrix P(t) solution is obtained
by solving the MDRE equation (25) backward in time with
the given final conditions (24) based on analytical solution
[17]. The solutions for the Riccati coefficients for the
considered finite-time interval are plotted in figure 5.

Fig. 7. Plot of optimal control u*(t) (in Volts)

Fig. 5. Plot of Riccati coefficients matrix P(t)
B. Infinite-time LQR
When the final time tf is infinity, then there is no
practical significance of the terminal cost function (12) and
because of this, F(tf) becomes a zero matrix. In this case,
P(t) will be constant and therefore, (t) becomes equal to
zero. Now, the MDRE equation (25) becomes

Using the optimal control u*(t) (26), the optimal states [ ]+[ ]+[ ]−[ ]=0 (27)
x1 (t) and x2*(t) is obtained by solving the Maglev plant state
*

equations (8) and (9) forward in time for the given initial On solving equation (27), the value of time independent
conditions [-1.5, 0.762]T Volts [6], [9]. The figure 6 and 7 P matrix is obtained as (28), which is almost equal to the
represents the optimized state vector X*(t) and the optimal steady-state value of time dependent P(t) matrix solution
control u*(t) respectively in Volts. (fig. 5). Therefore,
 0.0376 0.0005 tracking performance, the system performance indices like
= (28)
0.0005 0.0000 Integral Time Square Error (ITSE) and Integral Time
Absolute Error (ITAE) are calculated for the step response
Hence, the optimal control u*(t) for infinite-time (fig. 8) for all controllers and is tabulated in Table 2, in
LQR becomes which e(t) is the error expressed as the difference between
actual and desired ball position.
∗( )= − ∗
( ) (29)
TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE INDICES COMPARISION
IV. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULT Performance Indices
The implementation of the proposed controller designed ITSE ITAE
in the above section with Maglev system is performed in Sl.
Type of Controller
both simulation and hardware model set-up. To validate the No.
∙ ( ) ∙ | ( )|
effectiveness of the proposed controller, the classical PID
controller tuned by Ziegler–Nichols (Z-N) method is also
implemented in both simulation and real time (with 1 0
parameter as kp=9.4085, ki=19.8483, kd=0.05730 [7]). = 0.000224 0.0005268
Infinite- 0 0
1 time
Figure 8 represents the step response comparison of LQR 100 0
Maglev plant with the different configuration controller. = 2.169e-05 5.56e-06
0 0
The experiment is performed with two different selection of
Q weight matrix. Q1 is the old weight matrix as expressed in 1 0
= 0.0005592 0.001128
(14) and Q100 is the new weight matrix obtained by Finite- 0 0
increasing the non-zero elements of (14) by 100 times. 2 time
LQR 100 0
= 1.62e-05 5.193e-05
0 0

3 Z-N Tuned PID 0.0003961 0.01451

As the equilibrium point for position x of the physical

system is at x0 = -1.5 Volts, the reference trajectory or
desired ball position tested for both simulations and real
time is considered to be a square wave signal having mean
value equals to 1.5 Volts. The simulation is run for 5 sec to
observe the clear difference between the tracking responses
of Maglev system with different controller configuration
and simulation result is represented in figure 9.

Fig. 8. Step Response Comparison (Simulation)

TABLE 1. TIME DOMAIN SPECIFICATION COMPARISION

Time Domain
Sl. Specification
Type of Controller Max. Settling
No.
Overshoot Time
(in %) (in sec)

1 0
= 0.368 0.0685
0 0
Infinite-time
1
LQR
100 0
= 3.520 0.0313
0 0

1 0
= 0.027 0.0881 Fig. 9. Simulation-time tracking response of Maglev system with
0 0
Finite-time different controllers (in Volts)
2
LQR
100 0
= 3.345 0.0298 From the above simulink response result, it is observed
0 0
that the performance of optimal LQR with both Q1 and Q100
3 Z-N Tuned PID 18.590 0.6580 weight matrix is better than Z-N tuned PID controller.
However, the performance of LQR system is very much
The time domain specification of Maglev system with improved with the new weight matrix Q100 as compared
the proposed HJB-LQR controller and Z-N tuned PID with the old weight matrix Q1. And the overall performance
controller is compared in Table 1. To observe the better of finite-time LQR optimal controller with the improved
weight matrix Q100 is slightly better than that of infinite-
time. But, large magnitude of weight matrices would require
greater control force u(t) which generally corresponds to
greater cost (more energy, larger actuator, etc). Therefore,
the proposed finite and infinite-time LQR controller with Q1
weight matrix having less magnitude is implemented with
the hardware set-up of Maglev plant and run in real-time for
50 sec with a square wave reference of mean value equals to
1.5 Volts. The real-time tracking response of Maglev system
with different configuration controller is shown in figure 10,
which clearly indicates the better performance of optimal
LQR control for Maglev system.
Fig. 10. Real-time tracking response of Maglev system with
different controllers (in Volts)
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the optimal LQR controller is designed
using H-J-B equation for both infinite-time and finite-time
is proposed for Maglev system. The quadratic form of cost
function is based on energy consumption. The experiment is
successfully carried out in both simulink and real time
hardware set-up. The time response performance of LQR
controller can be improved according to the desired
specifications by the proper selection of weights matrices on
the basis of trial and error method. However, the weight
matrices of higher magnitude would eventually requires
greater control force u(t) resulting into greater cost (more
energy, larger actuator, etc.) One can also use an algebraic
approach for selecting the weighting matrices of LQR based
on the desired time domain specification of the system as
the trial and error method seems to be very time consuming.
From the comparative study, it is observed that the time
response and the tracking performance of Maglev system
with the proposed controllers are found to be much better
than Z-N tuned PID controller both in simulink and real
time environment. The comparative result also shows that
the finite-time LQR optimal controller performance is
slightly better than that of infinite-time with the proper
selection of weights matrices. In the future, a detailed study
of robustness in presence of model uncertainties or external
disturbances will be incorporated as a scope of further
research.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
[1] Marjan Golob, Boris Tovornik, “Modelling and control of the
magnetic suspension system,” ISA Transaction 42, 89-100, 2003.
[2] R. G. Rule and R. G. Gilliland, “Combined magnetic levitation and
propulsion: The mag-transit concept,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 41-49, Feb 1980.
[3] Walter Barie and John Chiasson, “Linear and nonlinear state space
controllers for magnetic levitation,” International Journal of Systems
Science, Vol. 27, pp. 1153-1163, 1996.
[4] Chao-Lin Kuo, Tzuu-Hseng S.Li, Nai Ren Guo, “Design of a Novel
Fuzzy Sliding Mode Control for Magnetic Ball Levitation System,”
International Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, Vol. 42, pp.
295-316, 2005.
[5] T. H. Wong, “Design of a Magnetic Levitation Control System- An
Undergraduate Project,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. E-29,
no. 4, pp. 196-200, Nov. 1986.
[6] Magnetic Levitation: Control Experiments Feedback Instruments
Limited, UK, 2011.
[7] Shekhar Yadav, S. K. Verma, S. K. Nagar, “Optimized PID
Controller for Magnetic Levitation system,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49-
1, 778-782, 2016.
[8] Vinodh Kumar E, Jovitha Jerome, “LQR based optimal tuning of PID
controller for trajectory tracking of Magnetic Levitation system,”
Procedia Engineering 64, 254-264, 2013.
[9] Arun Ghosh et al., “Design and implementation of a 2-DOF PID
compensation for magnetic levitation systems,” ISA Transactions 53,
1216-1222, 2014.
[10] Debdoot Sain, Subrat Kumar Swain, Sudhansu Kumar Mishra, “TID
and I-TD Controller Design for Magnetic Levitation System Using
Genetic Algorithm,” Perspectives in Science (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.078
[11] Subrat Kumar Swain, Debdoot Sain, Sudhansu Kumar Mishra, “Real
time implementation of fractional order PID controllers for a
Magnetic Levitation plant,” International Journal of Electronics and
Communication (AEU) 78 (2017) 141-156.
[12] Shekhar Yadav, J.P. Tiwari, S. K. Nagar, “Digital Control of
Magnetic Levitation System using Fuzzy Logic Controller,”
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975-8887), Vol.
41-No.21, 2012.
[13] F. J. Lin, L. T. Teng and P. H. Shieh, “Intelligent Sliding-Mode
Control Using RBFN for Magnetic Levitation System,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1752-1762,
June 2007.
[14] D. Cho, Y. Kato and D. Spilman, “Sliding mode and classical
controllers in magnetic levitation systems,” IEEE Control Systems,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 42-48, Feb. 1993.
[15] M. N. Monfared, M. H. Dolatabadi and A. Fakharian, “Nonlinear
optimal control of magnetic levitation system based on HJB equation
approximate solution,” 2014 22nd Iranian Conference on Electrical
Engineering (ICEE), Tehran, 2014, pp. 1360-1365.
[16] Donald E. Kirk, “Optimal Control Theory An Introduction,” Dover
Publication, Inc, Dover edition, 2004.
[17] Desineni Subbaram Naidu, “Optimal Control Systems,” CRC Press
LLC, 2013.
[18] E. V. Kumar, J. Jerome and K. Srikanth, “Algebraic approach for
selecting the weighting matrices of linear quadratic regulator,” 2014
International Conference on Green Computing Communication and
Electrical Engineering (ICGCCEE), Coimbatore, 2014, pp. 1-6.