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

net/publication/226497135

On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system

Article in Nonlinear Dynamics · January 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s11071-009-9534-8

CITATIONS READS

82 3,765

2 authors:

Naif B. Almutairi Mohamed Zribi

Kuwait University Kuwait University
26 PUBLICATIONS 869 CITATIONS 139 PUBLICATIONS 3,790 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Naif B. Almutairi on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nonlinear Dyn (2010) 59: 221–238
DOI 10.1007/s11071-009-9534-8
O R I G I N A L PA P E R
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system
Naif B. Almutairi · Mohamed Zribi
Received: 9 April 2008 / Accepted: 17 May 2009 / Published online: 3 June 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract This paper investigates the sliding mode
control of the Ball on a Beam system. A static and
a dynamic sliding-mode controllers are designed us-
ing a simplified model of the system; the simplified
model renders the system feedback linearizable. Then,
a static and a dynamic sliding-mode controllers are de-
signed using the complete model of the Ball on a Beam
system. Simulation results indicate that the proposed
controllers work well.
The four proposed controllers are implemented us-
ing an experimental setup. Implementation results in-
dicate that the proposed control schemes work well.
As expected, it is found that the proposed two con-
trollers which are designed using the complete model
of the system gave better performance than the ones
designed using the simplified model of the system. In
addition, the experimental results indicate the two dy-
namic controllers greatly reduce the chattering usually
associated with sliding-mode controllers.
Keywords Sliding mode control · Underactuated
system · Ball on a beam
N.B. Almutairi () · M. Zribi
Department of Electrical Engineering, College
of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University,
P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
e-mail: naif@eng.kuniv.edu.kw
1 Introduction
Several researchers have investigated the problem of
controlling the ball position of a Ball on a Beam sys-
tem. Hauser et al. [1] considered the nonlinear Ball
on a Beam control problem; they pointed out that the
relative degree [2] of the Ball on a Beam system is
not well defined and thus the system is not input–
output linearizable. To resolve this difficulty, a sim-
plified nonlinear model was used to approximate the
original Ball on a Beam system model. Using the sim-
plified model of the Ball on a Beam system, many re-
searchers proposed different types of controllers; for
example, see [3–8]. In references [9–11], the idea of
approximating the system was further developed in the
sense that the “approximate feedback linearization”
was applied only when the system was near the singu-
larities; otherwise the controller was switched to the
“exact feedback-linearization controller.” An approx-
imate sliding-mode controller was proposed in [12].
The approximation is based on altering the denomina-
tor of the control law to avoid singularity. This change
in the control leads to a bounded sliding surface which
results in the deterioration of the performance. Also,
Hirschorn [13, 14] proposed an incremental sliding-
mode controller for the Ball on a Beam system.
Several nonlinear control schemes for the Ball on a
Beam system can be found in [15–19]. On the other
hand, intelligent control algorithms, such as neural
networks and fuzzy-logic controllers, have been used
222 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

to control the Ball on a Beam system. For example, 2 Dynamic model of the Ball on a Beam system
the application of neural networks for the real time
control of a Ball on a Beam system can be found in Referring to the Ball on a Beam system depicted in
[20–23]. While the application of fuzzy logic for real- Fig. 1, a ball is placed on a beam where it is allowed
to roll with one degree of freedom along the length of
time control of a Ball on a Beam system can be found
the beam. A lever arm is attached to the beam at one
in [24–27]. Recently, conventional and fuzzy PD con-
end and a servo gear at the other end. As the servo gear
trollers, which asymptotically stabilize the Ball on a turns by an angle θ , the lever changes the angle of the
Beam system using the complete model of the system, beam by an angle α. When the angle is changed from
were proposed in [28] and [29]. In reference [30], a the horizontal position, gravity causes the ball to roll
hybrid controller is proposed to control the Ball on a along the beam. The mathematical description of this
Beam system where a nonlinear controller is designed system consists of the dynamics of a DC servomotor
to stabilize the state variables which affect the sys- and the dynamic model of the ball on the beam.
tem’s relative degree. With the relative degree of the The equations of motion describing the Ball on a
system controlled, an outer loop linear controller can Beam system can be written as [29]:
be used to further enhance the stability of the system.  2 
mr + k1 α̈ + (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇
Moreover, an adaptive controller is proposed in [31]  
L
to control the Ball on a Beam system with unknown + mgr + Mg cos α = u (1)
parameters. 2
This paper deals with the sliding mode control of k4 r̈ − r α̇ 2 + g sin α = 0 (2)
the Ball on a Beam system. We first use a simplified
where
model of the Ball on a Beam system to design a static
and a dynamic sliding-mode controllers for the sys- α(t): beam angle
tem. The simplified model greatly reduces the com- r(t): ball position
θ (t): servo gear angle
plexity of the design. In addition, a static and a dy-
g: gravitational constant
namic controllers are designed using the full model of
m: mass of the ball
the Ball on a Beam system. Simulation, as well as im- M: mass of the beam
plementation results, indicates that the proposed con- L: length of the beam
trollers work well. It is found that the controllers de-
The parameters of the system are such
signed using the full model of the system gave better
performance than the controllers designed using the Rm : armature resistance of the motor
simplified model of the system. Jm : effective moment of inertia
Km : motor torque constant
The paper is organized as follows. The dynamic
Kg : gear ratio
model of the Ball on a Beam system is presented in
Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, a static and a dynamic sliding-mode
controllers are designed using the simplified model of
the Ball on a Beam system. In Sect. 4, a static and a
dynamic sliding-mode controllers are designed using
the full model of the Ball on a Beam system. Simu-
lation results are given and discussed in Sect. 5. Fur-
thermore, the implementations results of the proposed
controllers using a hardware test bed are presented and
discussed in Sect. 6. Finally, some concluding remarks
are given in Sect. 7.
Sometimes, the arguments of a function are omitted
in the analysis, when no confusion can arise. Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the Ball on a Beam system
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system 223

d: lever arm offset ṙ α̇(mr 2 + k1 )

f0 =
J1 : moment of inertia of the beam k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
Kb : back EMF constant
2r α̇[(2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ + (mgr + L2 Mg) cos α]
The parameters k1 , k2 , k3 , and k4 are functions of −
the system parameters as follows: k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
g(mr 2 + k1 )α̇ cos α
Rm J m L −
k1 = + J1 k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
Km Kg d
  2r α̇
L Km Kb Rm Bm g0 =
k2 = + Kb + k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
d Rm Km Kg
Km It should be mentioned that k4 (mr 2 + k1 ) is a positive
k3 = 1 + quantity as k1 and k4 are greater than zero.
Rm
If the quantity of g0 is non-zero in the region of
k4 = 7/5 interest, then the linearizing controller, u = g10 (−f0 +
...
vin (t): input voltage to the motor v), results in the closed-loop dynamics y = v. The
u(t) = k3 vin (t): control input to the Ball on a Beam new control signal v can then be chosen such that the
system desired behavior is obtained.

However, considering that the region of interest is

Remark 1 (Equilibrium of the system) The equilib-
such that α = αe = 0 and α̇ = 0, it can be then deduced
rium of the system described by (1) and (2) is given
that g0 = 0 around α = 0 and the relative degree of the
by the following equations:
system is not well defined around α = αe = 0. There-
 
L fore, the exact input–output linearization approach is
mgre + Mg cos αe = ue not a feasible one around the region α = αe = 0. Ap-
2
proximate input to output linearization was proposed
sin αe = 0
by Hauser et al. [1]; they neglected the “centrifugal
Since the beam angle α is physically limited acceleration” term r α̇ 2 in the model of the system (2)
by −π/2 < α < π/2, then sin αe = 0 implies that and hence as a result the system ended up having a
αe = 0. Therefore, the above equation implies that well-defined relative degree.
re = mg1
ue − L2 M
m . Hence, any equilibrium point of
the Ball on a Beam system must be such that αe = 0
and re = rd , where rd is a desired value of the position 3 Design of sliding-mode controllers using the
of the ball. simplified model of the system

In this section, we will utilize the simplified model

Remark 2 (Relative degree of the system) The ba-
(i.e., neglect the term r α̇ 2 ) in designing a static and
sic approach in input–output linearization is to dif-
a dynamic sliding-mode controller for the Ball on a
ferentiate the output function of the system until the
Beam system.
input variable appears [2]. For the Ball on a Beam
Equations (1)–(2) can be rewritten as
system, the output is the position of the ball r, and
the input is u. Differentiating the output y = r un- 
1
til the input u appears, results in the following equa- α̈ = u − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇
(mr 2 + k1 )
tions:   
L
− mgr + Mg cos α (4)
ẏ = ṙ 2

ÿ = r̈ =
r 2 g
α̇ − sin α (3) 1 2 
k4 k4 r̈ = r α̇ − g sin α (5)
k4
...
y = y 0 + g0 u
If we ignore the term r α̇ 2 in (5) and let the states of the
where system be as follows: z1 = r, z2 = ṙ, z3 = α and z4 =
224 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

α̇, a simplified model of the system can be rewritten as 3.1 Design of a static sliding-mode controller using
the simplified model
ż1 = z2
g The simplified model of the Ball on a Beam system
ż2 = − sin z3 in (6) will be used to design the first sliding-mode con-
k4
troller for the Ball on a Beam system. The objective of
ż3 = z4
(6) the controller is to drive the position r to its desired
 constant value rd while forcing α to converge to its
1
ż4 = u − (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 equilibrium value αe = 0.
(mz12 + k1 ) Let b1 , b2 , and b3 be parameters to be chosen by the
  
L designer such that the polynomial P1 (s) = s 3 + b1 s 2 +
− mgz1 + Mg cos z3
2 b2 s + b3 is a Hurwitz polynomial. Define the sliding
surface σ1 to be:
Let the output of the system be such that
σ1 = y (3) + b1 ÿ + b2 ẏ + b3 (y − rd )
g g
y = z1 (7) = − z4 cos z3 − b1 sin z3 + b2 z2 + b3 (z1 − rd )
k4 k4
(14)
Then
Define the sign function to be such that:
ẏ = z2 (8) ⎧
g ⎨ +1 if φ > +1
⎪
ÿ = − sin z3 (9) sgn(φ) = 0 if φ = 0
k4 ⎪
⎩
g −1 if φ < −1
y (3) = − z4 cos z3 (10)
k4 To guarantee switching, we need to have

g σ1 σ̇1 < 0 [2].
y =
(4)
−u cos z3
k4 (mz12 + k1 ) Let Γ1 be a positive constant. The following propo-
sition gives the first result of the paper.
+ (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 cos z3
 
L Proposition 1 The sliding-mode controller
+ mgz1 + Mg cos2 z3
2 
 1 gz4 cos z3 g sin z3
 2  u= −fs + b1 + b2
+ z4 mz1 + k1 sin z3
2
hs k4 k4

= fs + hs u (11) − b3 z2 − Γ1 sgn(σ1 ) (15)

where asymptotically stabilizes the output of the system y =

z1 = r to its desired value rd and forces the other

g (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 + (mgz1 + L2 Mg) cos z3 states of the system to their equilibrium values.
fs =
k4 (mz12 + k1 )
Proof Taking the time derivative of σ1 in (14) with
× cos z3 + z42 sin z3 (12) respect to time and using (8)–(11), it follows that

−g σ̇1 = y (4) + b1 y (3) + b2 ÿ + b3 ẏ

hs = cos z3 (13) gz4 cos z3
k4 (mz12 + k1 ) = (fs + hs u) − b1
k4
Note that hs is always different from zero as −π/2 < g sin z3
− b2 + b3 z2 (16)
α < π/2. k4
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system 225

Using the controller given by (15) into the above Remark 3 The controller given by Proposition 1 can
equation, it follows that be written using the original coordinates as follows:

σ̇1 = −Γ1 sgn(σ1 ) 1 g g
(17) u= −f¯s + b1 α̇ cos α + b2 sin α
h̄s k4 k4

The dynamics in (17) guarantees that σ1 σ̇1 < 0,
which is the condition needed to guarantee switching. − b3 ṙ − Γ1 sgn(σ̄1 )
The trajectories associated with the unforced discon-
tinuous dynamics in (17) exhibit a finite time reach- where
ability to zero from any given initial condition σ1 (0) g g
σ̄1 = − α̇ cos α − b1 sin α + b2 ṙ + b3 (r − rd )
provided that the constant gain Γ1 is chosen to be k4 k4
strictly positive. Since σ1 is driven to zero in finite 
¯ g (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ + (mgr + L2 Mg) cos α
time, the output y = z1 = r is governed after such a fs = cos α
finite time, by the third-order dynamics y (3) + b1 ÿ + k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
b2 ẏ + b3 (y − rd ) = 0.
+ α̇ 2 sin α
Consider the third-order ordinary differential equa-
tion −g
h̄s = cos α
k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
y (3) + b1 ÿ + b2 ẏ + b3 (y − rd ) = 0 (18)
Like any other variable-structure controller, the
Define the errors e1 , e2 , and e3 such that e1 = y − proposed controller is confronted with the problem of
rd , e2 = ẏ, and e3 = ÿ. Define the error vector to be chattering, which is undesirable in practice. To cope
e = [ e1 e2 e3 ]T . Equation (18) can be written as with this problem, a dynamic sliding-mode controller
scheme is proposed in the following section.
ė = Ae e
3.2 Design of a dynamic sliding-mode controller
where using the simplified model
⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 To reduce the chattering due to the static sliding-mode
Ae = ⎣ 0 0 1 ⎦ controller, a dynamic sliding-mode controller using
−b3 −b2 −b1 the simplified model of the Ball on a Beam system is
proposed in this section.
Denote I3 to be the 3 × 3 identity matrix. The de- Differentiating (11) with respect to time, it follows
terminant of (sI3 − Ae ) is that

det(sI3 − Ae ) = P1 (s) y (5) = f˙s + ḣs u + hs u̇

= s 3 + b1 s 2 + b2 s + b3 = fd + hd u + hs u̇ (19)

Since P1 (s) is Hurwitz, then Ae is a stable matrix. where

Therefore e(t) converges to zero as t goes to infin- 
g
ity. Hence limt→∞ e1 = limt→∞ (y − rd ) = 0, which fd = −(2mz1 z2 + k2 ) cos z3
k4 (mz12 + k1 )2
implies that y = r converges to rd . Also, limt→∞ e2 =
   
limt→∞ ẏ = limt→∞ ṙ = 0, and limt→∞ e3 = L
× (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 + mgz1 + Mg cos z3
limt→∞ sin α = 0; this leads to limt→∞ α = 0 as 2
−π/2 < α < π/2. Since α(t) converges to zero, then  
  g
α̇(t) convergence to zero as t goes to infinity. There- + 2m mz12 + k1 z22 − z1 sin z3 z4 cos z3
k4
fore, all the states of the Ball on a Beam system con-  2 
verge to their desired values as t goes to infinity.  − (2mz1 z2 + k2 ) mz1 + k1 z42 sin z3
226 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi
  
+ mgz2 mz12 + k1 cos2 z3 + c3
g
sin α − c4 ṙ − Γ2 sgn(σ2 ) (24)
  k4
L  
− 2z4 mgz1 + Mg mz12 + k1 sin z3 cos z3
2 when applied to the Ball on a Beam system, asymptot-

 2  ically stabilizes the states of the system to their desired
− 2z4 mz1 + k1 sin z3 (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 values.
  
L
+ mgz1 + Mg cos z3 Proof Differentiating σ2 in (22) with respect to time
2
and using (8)–(11), it follows that
 2
+ z43 mz12 + k1 cos z3
  σ̇2 = y (5) + c1 y (4) + c2 y (3) + c3 ÿ + c4 ẏ
+ 2mz1 z2 z42 mz12 + k1 sin z3
 = (fd + hd u + hs u̇) + c1 (fs + hs u)
− 2mz1 z2 (2mz1 z2 + k2 )z4 cos z3 g g
− c2 α̇ cos α − c3 sin α + c4 ṙ (25)
  k4 k4
L
+ mgz1 + Mg cos2 z3 Substituting u̇ by its value from (24), we get
2

  g
+ z42 mz12 + k1 sin z3 (20) σ̇2 = fd + hd u + c1 (fs + hs u) − c2 α̇ cos α
k4
g g
hd = 3 z4 sin z3 − c3 sin α + c4 ṙ
k4 (mz12 + k1 ) k4

g g
+ (4mz1 z2 + k2 ) cos z3 (21) + −fd − hd u − c1 (fs + hs u) + c2 α̇ cos α
k4 (mz12 + k1 )2 k4

We will choose the switching surface σ2 such that g
+ c3 sin α − c4 ṙ − Γ2 sgn(σ2 )
k4
σ2 = y (4) + c1 y (3) + c2 ÿ + c3 ẏ + c4 (y − yd ) (22)
= −Γ2 sgn(σ2 ) (26)
where c1 , c2 , c3 , and c4 are positive design parameters
which are chosen such that the polynomial P2 (s) = It can be easily checked that the dynamics in (26)
s 4 + c1 s 3 + c2 s 2 + c3 s + c4 is a Hurwitz polynomial. guarantees that σ2 σ̇2 < 0. The trajectories associated
Using (8)–(11), the switching surface σ2 can be with the unforced discontinuous dynamics in (26) ex-
written as hibit a finite time reachability to zero from any given
g initial condition σ2 (0), provided that the constant Γ2 is
σ2 = fs + hs u − c1 z4 cos z3
k4 chosen to be strictly positive. Since σ2 is driven to zero
g in finite time, the output y(t) = z1 (t) is governed after
− c2 sin z3 + c3 z2 + c4 (y − rd )
k4 such a finite amount of time by the fourth-order dif-
g ferential equation y (4) + c1 y (3) + c2 ÿ + c3 ẏ + c4 (y −
= fs + hs u − c1 α̇ cos α
k4 yd ) = 0. Thus, the output y(t) = r(t) will asymptoti-
g cally converge to its desired value rd since the scalars
− c2 sin α + c3 ṙ + c4 (r − rd ) (23) c1 , c2 , c3 , and c4 are chosen to be such positive scalars
k4
that the polynomial P2 (s) = s 4 + c1 s 3 + c2 s 2 + c3 s +
To guarantee switching, we need to have σ2 σ̇2 < 0 [2].
c4 is a Hurwitz polynomial. Moreover, it follows that
Let Γ2 be a positive scalar. The following proposi-
α, α̇ , and ṙ will also asymptotically converge to zero
tion gives the second result of the paper.
as t goes to infinity.
Proposition 2 The following dynamic control scheme: Therefore, it can be concluded that the dynamic
 sliding-mode controller given by (24) guarantees the
1 g asymptotic convergence of the states of the system to
u̇ = −fd − hd u − c1 (fs + hs u) + c2 α̇ cos α
hs k4 their desired values. 
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system 227

Remark 4 The controller given by Proposition 2 can 4 Design of sliding-mode controllers using the
be written using the original coordinates as follows: complete model of the Ball on a Beam system

In the previous section, we used the simplified model


1   g of the Ball on a Beam system to design two controllers
u̇ = −f¯d − h̄d u − c1 f¯s + h̄s u + c2 α̇ cos α for the system; note that the simplified model has a
h̄s k4
 relative degree of order 3. This simplification is done
g
+ c3 sin α − c4 ṙ − Γ2 sgn(σ̄2 ) by neglecting the centrifugal acceleration term r α̇ 2 .
k4 In this section, the complete mode of the system is
used. Motivated by the work done in [32, 33], where
the problem of sliding mode control of underactuated
where
systems is tackled, we propose a static and a dynamic
sliding-mode controllers for the Ball on a Beam sys-
g g tem using the complete model of the system.
σ̄2 = f¯s + h̄s u − c1 α̇ cos α − c2 sin α
k4 k4
4.1 Design of a static sliding-mode controller using
+ c3 ṙ + c4 (r − rd )
 the complete model of the Ball on a Beam system
¯ g
fd = −(2mr ṙ + k2 ) cos α
k4 (mr 2 + k1 )2 Define the regulation errors
   
L eα = α − αe = α
× (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ + mgr + Mg cos α
2
  er = r − rd
 2  2 g
+ 2m mr + k1 ṙ − r sin α α̇ cos α
k4 where αe = 0 and rd is a constant desired value. Also,
 2  define the sliding surface
− (2mr ṙ + k2 ) mr + k1 α̇ 2 sin α
  s1 = ėα + γ1 eα + γ2 ėr + γ3 er
 2  2 L
+ mg ṙ mr + k1 cos α − 2α̇ mgr + Mg
2 = α̇ + γ1 α + γ2 ṙ + γ3 (r − rd ) (27)
 2 
× mr + k1 sin α cos α where γ1 , γ2 and γ3 are scalars such that γ1 > 0, γ2 <

  0, γ3 < 0, and γ3 > γ1 γ2 .
− 2α̇ mr 2 + k1 sin α (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ Let Γ3 be a positive scalar. The following proposi-
   tion gives the third result of the paper.
L
+ mgr + Mg cos α
2 Proposition 3 The sliding-mode controller:
 2  
+ α̇ 3 mr 2 + k1 cos α L
  u = (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ + mgr + Mg cos α
2
+ 2mr ṙ α̇ 2 mr 2 + k1 sin α
 
 r α̇ 2 − g sin α  2 
− γ1 α̇ + γ3 ṙ + γ2 mr + k1
− 2mr ṙ (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ cos α k4
   
L − mr 2 + k1 Γ3 sgn(s1 ) (28)
+ mgr + Mg cos2 α
2 when applied to the Ball on a Beam system, asymptot-

  ically stabilizes the states of the system to their desired
+ α̇ 2 mr 2 + k1 sin α values.
g
h̄d = 3 α̇ sin α Proof Differentiating s1 in (27) with respect to time,
k4 (mr 2 + k1 )
we obtain:
g
+ (4mr ṙ + k2 ) cos α
k4 (mr + k1 )2
2 ṡ1 = α̈ + γ1 α̇ + γ2 r̈ + γ3 ṙ (29)
228 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

Substituting α̈ and r̈ from (1)–(2) into (29), we get k4 r̈ − r γ12 α 2 + γ22 ṙ 2 + γ32 (r − rd )2

u − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ − (mgr + L2 Mg) cos α + 2γ2 γ3 ṙ(r − rd ) + 2γ1 γ2 α ṙ

ṡ1 = 
(mr 2 + k1 ) + 2γ1 γ3 α(r − rd ) + g sin α = 0 (34)
r α̇ 2 − g sin α or,
+ γ1 α̇ + γ2 + γ3 ṙ (30)
k4
r  2 2
r̈ = γ α + γ22 ṙ 2 + γ32 (r − rd )2 + 2γ2 γ3 ṙ(r − rd )
Substituting the controller given by (28) into the k4 1
above equation, it follows that  g
+ 2γ1 γ2 α ṙ + 2γ1 γ3 α(r − rd ) − sin α (35)
k4
ṡ1 = −Γ3 sgn(s1 ) (31)
Define the states x1 , x2 , and x3 such that:
The dynamics in (31) guarantees that s1 ṡ1 is less ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
x1 r − rd
than zero. This is the condition which is needed to
x(t) = ⎣ x2 ⎦ = ⎣ ṙ ⎦
guarantee switching. The trajectories associated with
x3 α
the unforced discontinuous dynamics in (31) exhibit a
finite time reachability to zero from any given initial Then,
condition s1 (0), provided that the constant gain Γ3 is
chosen to be strictly positive.  ẋ1 = ṙ = x2
(x1 + rd )  2 2
ẋ2 = r̈ = γ1 x3 + γ22 x22 + γ32 x12
In the case of a fully actuated system, it has been k4
established that the sliding control method guaran- 
+ 2γ2 γ3 x1 x2 + 2γ1 γ2 x2 x3 + 2γ1 γ3 x1 x3
tees that the system response reaches the sliding sur-
face and that the surface is asymptotically stable. g
− sin x3 (36)
Such claims cannot be made, however, for underac- k4
tuated systems such as the Ball on a Beam system. ẋ3 = α̇ = −γ1 x3 − γ2 x2 − γ3 x1
The controller in (28) guarantees that all system tra-
jectories reach the sliding surface s1 = 0. However, The system of ODEs in (36) can be written in compact
we need to prove that the trajectories will converge form as:
to their desired values after reaching the sliding sur-
ẋ = f1 (x) (37)
face.
To derive the necessary and sufficient conditions where
for the asymptotic stability of the Ball on a Beam sys-
tem when controlled using the sliding-mode controller f1 (x)
⎡ ⎤
given by (28), we proceed as follows. Since we have x2
already proved that s1 converges to zero in finite time, ⎢ (x1 +rd ) (γ 2 x 2 + γ 2 x 2 + γ 2 x 2 + 2γ γ x x ⎥
⎢ 2 3 1 2⎥
we will now examine the dynamics of s1 on the sliding = ⎢ k4 1 3 2 2 3 1
⎥
⎣ + 2γ1 γ2 x2 x3 + 2γ1 γ3 x1 x3 ) − kg4 sin x3 ⎦
surface.
−γ1 x3 − γ2 x2 − γ3 x1
The dynamics of the system on the sliding surface
s1 = 0 is given by We want to study the stability of the system of
ODEs given by (37). It can be easily checked that the
α̇ = −γ1 α − γ2 ṙ − γ3 (r − rd ) (32) equilibrium point of the autonomous system in (37)
is the origin (i.e., (x1e , x2e , x3e ) = (0, 0, 0)) since
Substituting α̇ from (32) into (2), we get −π/2 < α < π/2 and α = x3 .
 2 We will linearize the system in (37) around the
k4 r̈ − r −γ1 α − γ2 ṙ − γ3 (r − rd ) + g sin α = 0 origin x = 0. Therefore, we obtain the following lin-
(33) earized system around the origin,

Hence, ẋ = A1 x (38)
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system 229

where Proposition 4 The following dynamic control scheme:

⎡ ⎤ 
 0 1 0  2  2mr ṙ
∂f1 (x)  ⎣ 0 −g ⎦
u̇ = mr + k1 −f + u
A1 = = 0 (mr 2 + k1 )2
∂x x=0 k4
−γ3 −γ2 −γ1 u − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ − (mgr + L2 Mg) cos α
− λ1
The characteristic equation of the linearized system is (mr 2 + k1 )
r α̇ 2 − g sin α
1 (s) = det(sI3 − A1 ) − λ2 α̇ − λ3 − λ4 ṙ − Γ4 sgn(s2 )
k4
gγ2 gγ3
= s 3 + γ1 s 2 − s− =0 (40)
k4 k4
when applied to the Ball on a Beam system, asymptot-
The necessary and sufficient conditions for stability
ically stabilizes the states of the system to their desired
are obtained by using the Routh–Hurwitz criterion.
values.
Therefore, we get γ1 > 0, γ2 < 0, γ3 < 0 and γ3 >
γ1 γ2 .
Proof Differentiating s2 in (39) with respect to time,
These conditions guarantee that A1 is a stable ma- yields
trix. Hence α, ṙ converge to zero and r converges to
rd as t goes to infinity. Using (32), it can be concluded ṡ2 = α (3) + λ1 α̈ + λ2 α̇ + λ3 r̈ + λ4 ṙ (41)
that α̇ converges to zero as t → ∞.
Therefore, if γ1 , γ2 and γ3 are chosen such that Differentiating α̈ with respect to time, we get
γ1 > 0, γ2 < 0, γ3 < 0 and γ3 > γ1 γ2 , then the linear 
1
system given by (38) is asymptotically stable, which α =
(3)
u̇ − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̈
(mr 2 + k1 )
leads to the stability of the nonlinear system given  
by (37) around the origin. r 2 α̇ 2 − gr sin α
− 2m ṙ + 2
α̇
It can be concluded that the static sliding-mode k4
controller given by (28) when applied to the Ball on a   
L
Beam system guarantees the asymptotic convergence + mgr + Mg α̇ sin α − mg ṙ cos α
2
of the states of the system to their desired values. 
2mr ṙ
− u − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇
4.2 Design of a dynamic sliding-mode controller (mr 2 + k1 )2
  
using the complete model of the Ball on a Beam L
system − mgr + Mg cos α
2
2mr ṙ 1
The main disadvantage of the proposed static con- =f − u+ u̇ (42)
(mr 2 + k1 )2 (mr 2 + k1 )
troller in the previous section is the chattering in the
control signal which is undesirable in practice. To cope where
with this problem, a dynamic SMC scheme is pro- 
2mr ṙ
posed in this section. f = (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇
(mr 2 + k1 )2
Define the sliding surface,   
L
+ mgr + Mg cos α
s2 = ëα + λ1 ėα + λ2 eα + λ3 ėr + λ4 er 2

= α̈ + λ1 α̇ + λ2 α + λ3 ṙ + λ4 (r − rd ) (39) 1
− (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̈
(mr 2 + k1 )
where λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , and λ4 are scalars such that λ1 >  
r 2 α̇ 2 − gr sin α
0, λ2 > 0, λ3 < 0, λ4 < 0, λ1 λ2 + kg4 λ3 > 0, and + 2m ṙ 2 + α̇
k4
λ21 λ4 > λ1 λ2 λ3 + kg4 λ23 .   
Let Γ4 be a positive scalar. The following proposi- L
− mgr + Mg α̇ sin α + mg ṙ cos α
tion gives the fourth result of the paper. 2
230 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

Also, recall that Define the states ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 , and ξ4 such that:

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 2  ξ1 r − rd
r̈ = r α̇ − g sin α (43) ⎢ ξ2 ⎥ ⎢ ṙ ⎥
k4 ξ (t) = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎣ ξ3 ⎦ = ⎣ α ⎦
⎥

Substituting α (3) and r̈ from (42) and (43), respec- ξ4 α̇

tively, into (41), we get
Then, using (46) and (47), we get:
2mr ṙ 1
ṡ2 = f − u+ u̇ ξ̇1 = ṙ = ξ2
(mr 2 + k1 )2 (mr 2 + k1 )
1 
u − (2mr ṙ + k2 )α̇ − (mgr + L2 Mg) cos α ξ̇2 = r̈ = (ξ1 + rd )ξ42 − g sin ξ3
+ λ1 k4
(mr 2 + k1 ) (48)
ξ̇3 = α̇ = ξ4
r α̇ 2 − g sin α
+ λ2 α̇ + λ3 + λ4 ṙ (44)
k4 ξ̇4 = α̈ = −λ1 ξ4 − λ2 ξ3 − λ3 ξ2 − λ4 ξ1

Substituting the controller given by (40) into the The system of ODEs in (48) can be written in compact
above equation, it follows that form as:

ξ̇ = f2 (ξ ) (49)
ṡ2 = −Γ4 sgn(s2 ) (45)
where
The dynamics in (45) guarantees that s2 ṡ2 is less ⎡ ⎤
than zero. This is the condition which needed to guar- ξ2
⎢ 1 ((ξ1 + rd )ξ 2 − g sin ξ3 ) ⎥
antee switching. The trajectories associated with the f2 (ξ ) = ⎢
⎣
k4 4 ⎥
⎦
unforced discontinuous dynamics in (45) exhibit a fi- ξ4
nite time reachability to zero from any given initial −λ1 ξ4 − λ2 ξ3 − λ3 ξ2 − λ4 ξ1
condition s2 (0), provided that the constant gain Γ4 is
We want to study the stability of the system given
chosen to be strictly positive.
by (49).
Therefore, the controller in (40) guarantees that
It can be easily checked that the equilibrium of
all system trajectories reach the surface. However, we the autonomous system in (49) is the origin. We will
need to prove that the trajectories will converge to their linearize the system in (49) around the origin ξ = 0.
desired values after reaching the sliding surface.  Therefore, we obtain the following linearized system
around the origin:
To derive the necessary and sufficient conditions
for the asymptotic stability of the Ball on a Beam sys- ξ̇ = A2 ξ (50)
tem when controlled using the sliding-mode controller
where
given by (40), we proceed as follows.
⎡ ⎤
Since we have already proved that s2 converges to 0 1 0 0
 −g
zero in finite time, we will now examine the dynamics ∂f2 (ξ )  ⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
A2 = =⎢ k4 ⎥
of s2 on the sliding surface. ∂ξ  ξ =0
⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎦
The dynamics of the system on the sliding surface −λ4 −λ3 −λ2 −λ1
s2 = 0 is given by
The characteristic equation of the linearized system
α̈ = −λ1 α̇ − λ2 α − λ3 ṙ − λ4 (r − rd ) (46) is

2 (s) = det(sI4 − A2 )
Recall that
g g
= s 4 + λ1 s 3 + λ2 s 2 − λ3 s − λ4
1 2  k4 k4
r̈ = r α̇ − g sin α (47)
k4 =0
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system
The necessary and sufficient conditions for stabil-
ity are obtained by using the Routh–Hurwitz criterion.
Therefore, we get λ1 > 0, λ2 > 0, λ3 < 0, λ4 < 0,
λ1 λ2 + kg4 λ3 > 0, and λ21 λ4 > λ1 λ2 λ3 + kg4 λ23 .
These conditions guarantee that A2 is a stable ma-
trix. Hence α, α̇, ṙ converge to zero and r converges
to rd as t → ∞. Using (46), it can be deduced that α̈
converges to zero as t → ∞.
Hence, if λ1 , λ2 , λ3 and λ4 are chosen such that
λ1 > 0, λ2 > 0, λ3 < 0, λ4 < 0, λ1 λ2 + kg4 λ3 > 0, and
λ21 λ4 > λ1 λ2 λ3 + kg4 λ23 , then the linear system given
by (50) is asymptotically stable, which leads to the sta-
bility of the nonlinear system given by (49) around the
origin.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the dynamic
sliding-mode controller given by (40) when applied to
the Ball on a Beam system guarantees the asymptotic
convergence of the states of the system to their desired
values.
5 Simulation results
The controllers designed in Sects. 3 and 4 are sim-
ulated using the MATLAB software. The parameters
of the system are the same as the parameters of the
Quanser Ball on a Beam setup used in conjunction
with the servo plant SR V01 and the power module
PA-0103 [34]. This apparatus is used to experimen-
tally implement the proposed control schemes. The
values of the parameters of the Ball on a Beam sys-
tem are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Values of the parameters of the Ball on a Beam system
Parameter Value
m 0.07 kg
m 5.3 Simulation results for the static sliding-mode
g 9.81 s2
L 0.43 m
M 0.15 kg
Rm 9 The controller parameters used are taken to be γ1 =
Jm 7.35 × 10−4 rad/s
Nm
2
Km Nm
0.0075 A
Kg 75
d 0.03 m
J1 0.001 kg m2
V
Kb 0.5625 rad/s
231
The objective of the proposed controllers is to drive
the position r to its desired constant value rd while
forcing the angle α to converge to its equilibrium value
αe = 0. To show the effectiveness of the proposed con-
trollers, the following desired values are used in the
simulations as well as in the implementations.
• For 0 ≤ t < 100 (s), set rd = 30 (cm).
• For 100 ≤ t ≤ 200 (s), set rd = 5 (cm).
5.1 Simulation results for the static sliding-mode
controller obtained using the simplified model
The controller parameters used in the simulations are
taken to be b1 = 14, b2 = 48, b3 = 80 and Γ1 = 15.
The parameters b1 , b2 and b3 are selected such that the
roots of the polynomial P1 (s) are −2 ± j 2 and −10.
Figure 2 shows the simulation results when the first
static sliding-mode controller is used. It can be seen
from Fig. 2(a) that the output y = r(t) converges to
its desired value rd in about 10 seconds. The control
input vin (t) is shown in Fig. 2(b); chattering is evident
in this graph.
5.2 Simulation results for the dynamic sliding-mode
controller obtained using the simplified model
The controller parameters used in the simulations are
taken to be c1 = 72, c2 = 1342, c3 = 2540, c4 = 2400
and Γ2 = 300. The parameters c1 , c2 , c3 and c4 are
selected such that the roots of the polynomial P2 (s)
are −1 ± j, −30 and −40. Figure 3 shows the simula-
tion results when the first dynamic sliding-mode con-
troller is used. It can be seen from Fig. 3(a) that the
output y = r(t) converges to its desired signal rd in
about 10 seconds. The control input vin (t) is shown
in Fig. 3(b). Note that, as expected, the chattering is
greatly reduced.
controller obtained using the complete model
14, γ2 = −6.85, γ3 = −11.42 and Γ3 = 0.3. The para-
meters γ1 , γ2 and γ3 are selected such that the roots of
the polynomial 1 (s) are −2 ± j 2 and −10. Figure 4
shows the simulation results when the second static
sliding-mode controller is used. It can be seen from
Fig. 4(a) that the output y = r(t) converges to its de-
sired signal rd in about 15 s. The control input vin (t) is
232 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

Fig. 2 System response when the static SMC is used (in the simplified model)

Fig. 3 System response when the dynamic SMC is used (in the simplified model)

shown in Fig. 4(b). Note that the chattering is greatly
reduced in Fig. 4(b) as compared to the chattering in
Fig. 2(b).
5.4 Simulation results for the dynamic sliding-mode
controller obtained using the complete model
The controller parameters used are taken to be λ1 =
72, λ2 = 1342, λ3 = −362.5, λ4 = −342.5 and
Γ4 = 6. The parameters λ1 , λ2 , λ3 and λ4 are se-
lected such that the roots of the polynomial 2 (s)
are −1 ± j, −30 and −40. Figure 5 shows the sim-
ulation results when the second dynamic sliding-mode
controller is used. It can be seen from Fig. 5(a) that
the output y = r(t) converges to its desired signal
rd in about 15 s. The control input vin (t) is shown
in Fig. 5(b); note that the chattering is greatly re-
duced.
It can be concluded that the responses of the ball
position in all cases are very good, and the chatter-
ing is greatly reduced for the two cases when the dy-
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system 233

Fig. 4 System response when the static SMC is used (in the complete model)

Fig. 5 System response when the dynamic SMC is used (in the complete model)

namic sliding-mode controllers are used. This is an
expected result and actually it is one of the prop-
erties of the dynamic SMC. Also, it is worth men-
tioning that the chattering is reduced further when
using the complete model in the design of the con-
troller.
5.5 Robustness and comparisons of the controllers
The proposed static and dynamic controllers are com-
pared with a sliding-mode controller designed by
alternating the denominator of the control law to
avoid singularity [12]. First, the simulations are car-
ried when the mass of the ball is fixed to its nomi-
nal value. The results are shown in Fig. 6. It can be
seen that, for all controllers, the ball position con-
verges to its desired value. On the other hand, the
system response when using the proposed static and
dynamic sliding-mode controllers give generally a
better performance and have faster rise and settling
times.
234
Next, the performance of these controllers is simu-
lated when the mass of the ball is changed by ±25%.
The results are shown in Fig. 7. Figure 7a shows the
results when the mass is increased by 25%; Fig. 7b
shows the results when the mass is decreased by 25%.
It can be seen that, for all controllers, the ball posi-
tion converges to its desired value when the mass of
the ball varies by ±25%. Hence, the controlled sys-
tem is robust to changes in the mass value. This is
Fig. 6 Position of the ball when using static sliding-mode con-
troller (SSMC), dynamic sliding-mode controller (DSMC), and
approximate sliding-mode controller (ASMC)
Fig. 7 Position of the ball when using static SMC, dynamic SMC, and approximate SMC. a Position for m = 70g + 25%, and
b Position for m = 70g − 25%
N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi
an expected result since all the controllers are based
on a sliding mode control which is known to be ro-
bust to parameters uncertainties. As shown in Fig. 7,
the system response when using the proposed sta-
tic and dynamic sliding-mode controllers generally
gives a better performance with faster settling and rise
times.
6 Implementation results
The controllers designed in Sects. 3 and 4 are imple-
mented on the Ball on a Beam apparatus using the
MATLAB software and a dSPACE 1104 card. The ex-
perimental setup is shown in Fig. 8.
6.1 Description of the experimental setup
The experiment is carried out on the Quanser ball and
beam system [34]. The beam is 43 cm long. The ball
has a mass of 70 g. The input to the system is the mo-
tor control voltage vin (t), the outputs of the system are
the position of the motor, θ (t), and the position of the
ball, r(t). The Power module used is the Quanser PA-
0103 with ±12 V and 3 A output. The dSPACE board
is equipped with an A/D and a D/A converters. Be-
cause the dSPACE supports real-time operations, the
control program is operated using the Windows XP
with Matlab 7.3/Simulink 6.5. The sampling time is
10 ms.
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system
The proposed controllers require direct velocity
measurements, but these measurements are unavail-
able. A state observer can be designed to estimate
these velocities. Different well-known observers can
be used, such as the Luenberger-style observer or the
extended Kalman observer. Moreover, an observer de-
sign for nonlinear systems which fail to have well-
defined relative degrees (which is the case in the ball
and beam system) is proposed in [35]. For implemen-
tation purposes, either one of those observers can be
used to estimate the velocities ṙ and α̇. However, the
addition of the observer will make the problem more
complex because of computational needs. To simplify
the implementation, we simply used the derivative
block of Simulink to calculate these values. This ac-
Fig. 8 Experimental setup of the Ball on a Beam system
Fig. 9 Experimental results when the static SMC is used (in the simplified model)
235
tion requires that the position signals be quite smooth.
Therefore, first-order low-pass filters are applied to
the measured position signals. Because the closed-
loop system appears (using the step input response)
to exhibit second-order behavior with a natural fre-
quency around 1 rad/s, faster filters are used (a rule
of thumb would suggest at least 5 to 10 times faster
than the fastest closed-loop mode [36]). For the mo-
tor position, we used the first-order filter G1 = s +11
.
8
For the ball position, we used the first-order filter
G2 = s +1
1
.
7
6.2 Implementation results for the static
sliding-mode controller obtained using the
simplified model
The controller parameters used in the implementation
are taken to be b1 = 14, b2 = 48, b3 = 80 and Γ1 = 15.
The parameters of the controller are the same as the
ones used in the simulations. Figure 9(a) shows the
ball position while Fig. 9(b) shows the applied volt-
age to the DC motor. Notice that there is high over-
shoot in the ball position response. This is mainly
due to the chattering in the applied voltage. The ad-
verse effect of the chattering on the controlled sys-
tem response is the motivation for using a dynamic
SMC.
236 N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi

6.3 Implementation results for the dynamic
sliding-mode controller obtained using the
simplified model
The controller parameters used in the implementation
are taken to be c1 = 72, c2 = 1342, c3 = 2540, c4 =
2400 and Γ2 = 300. The parameters of the controller
are the same as the parameters used in the simulations.
Figure 10(a) shows the ball position while Fig. 10(b)
shows the applied voltage to the DC motor. Notice that
the chattering is greatly reduced which leads to great
improvement in the response of the ball position.
6.4 Implementation results for the static
sliding-mode controller obtained using the
complete model
The parameters are γ1 = 14, γ2 = −6.85, γ3 =
−11.42 and Γ3 = 0.3. The parameters of the controller
are the same as the parameters used in the simulations.
Figure 11(a) shows the ball position while Fig. 11(b)

Fig. 10 Experimental results when the dynamic SMC is used (in the simplified model)

Fig. 11 Experimental results when the static SMC is used (in the complete model)
On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system
Fig. 12 Experimental results when the dynamic SMC is used (in the complete model)
shows the applied voltage to the DC motor. As ex-
pected, when using the complete model of the system
in the controller design, the performance of the con-
trolled system is improved. The chattering is present
since the controller is a static SMC.
6.5 Implementation results for the dynamic
sliding-mode controller obtained using the
complete model
The parameters are λ1 = 72, λ2 = 1342, λ3 = −362.5,
λ4 = −342.5 and Γ4 = 6. The parameters of the con-
troller are the same as the parameters used in the sim-
ulations. Figure 12(a) shows the ball position while
Fig. 12(b) shows the applied voltage to the DC mo-
tor. Comparing Figs. 9(a), 10(a), 11(a) and 12(a), it
is noticed that the best result is obtained when using
the complete model in designing the dynamic SMC.
This confirms the most important finding of this pa-
per. That is, when using the dynamic SMC designed
using the complete model of the system, better results
in terms of system performance and bigger reduction
in the chattering of the control signal are obtained.
7 Conclusion
In this paper we investigated the sliding mode con-
trol of the Ball on a Beam system. Static and dynamic
sliding-mode controllers are designed first using the
237
simplified model and then using the complete model
of the system. The simulation results indicate that all
controllers work well. The proposed controllers are
then implemented using an experimental setup. Im-
plementation results indicate that the proposed control
schemes work well. As expected, it is found that the
proposed two controllers which are designed using the
complete model of the system give better performance
than the ones designed using the simplified model of
the system. Moreover, the dynamic controllers greatly
reduce the chattering in the system. Future work will
address the design and implementation of higher-order
sliding-mode controllers for underactuated systems,
especially the Ball on a Beam system.
References
1. Hauser, J., Sastry, S., Kokotovic, P.: Nonlinear control
via approximate input–output linearization: the ball and
beam example. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 37(3), 392–
398 (1992)
2. Slotine, J.J.E., Li, W.: Applied Nonlinear Control. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)
3. Lai, M., Chien, C., Cheng, C., Xu, Z., Zhang, Y.: Nonlinear
tracking control via approximate backstepping. In: Proc.
American Control Conference, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1339–
1343 (1994)
4. Chang, B.C., Kwtany, H., Hu, S.-S.: An application of ro-
bust feedback linearization to a ball and beam control prob-
lem. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Control
Applications, Trieste, Italy, pp. 694–698 (1998)
238
5. Leith, D., Leithead, W.: Input–output linearisation of non-
linear systems with ill-defined relative degree: the ball and
beam revisited. In: Proc. American Control Conference,
pp. 2811–2816 (2001)
6. Uran, S., Jezernik, K.: Control of a ball and beam-like
mechanism. In: Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on
Advanced Motion Control, pp. 376–380 (2002)
7. Gordillo, F., Aracil, J., Gomez-Estern, F.: Stabilization of
autonomous oscillations and the Hopf bifurcation in the
ball and beam. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, pp. 3924–3925 (2002)
8. Guo, Y., Hill, D.J., Jiang, Z.-P.: Global nonlinear control of
the ball and beam system. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, pp. 2818–2823 (1996)
9. Tomlin, C., Sastry, S.: Switching through singularities.
Syst. Control Lett. 35(3), 145–154 (1998)
10. Chen, W.-H., Ballance, D.J.: On a switching control scheme
for nonlinear systems with ill-defined relative degree. Syst.
Control Lett. 47(2), 159–166 (2002)
11. Zhang, F., Fernndez-Rodriguez, B.: Feedback lineariza-
tion control of systems with singularities. In: Proc. The
6th International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS),
Boston, MA (2006)
12. Spurgeon, S.K., Lu, X.Y.: Output tracking using dynamic
sliding-mode techniques. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control
7(4), 407–427 (1997)
13. Hirschorn, R.: Output tracking through singularities. SIAM
J. Control Optim. 40(4), 993–1010 (2001)
14. Hirschorn, R.: Incremental sliding-mode control of the ball
and beam. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 47(10), 1696–1700
(2002)
15. Huang, J., Lin, C.-F.: Robust nonlinear control of the ball
and beam system. In: Proc. American Control Conference,
Seattle, WA, pp. 306–310 (1995)
16. Kim, H.-K., Lee, D.-H., Kuc, T.-Y., Yi, T.-C.: A backstep-
ping design of adaptive robust learning controller for fast
trajectory tracking of ball–beam dynamic systems. In: Proc.
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cy-
bernetics, Beijing, China, pp. 2311–2314 (1996)
17. Olfati-Saber, R., Megretski, A.: Controller design for the
beam-and-ball system. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Deci-
sion and Control, Tampa, FL, pp. 4555–4560 (1998)
18. Mazenc, F., Astolfi, A., Lozano, R.: Lyapunov function for
the ball and beam: robustness property. In: Proc. IEEE Con-
ference on Decision and Control, Phoenix, AZ, pp. 1208–
1213 (1999)
19. Sira-Ramirez, H.: On the control of the “ball and beam”
system: a trajectory planning approach. In: Proc. IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Sydney, NSW, Aus-
tralia, pp. 4042–4047 (2000)
20. Jiang, Y., McCorkell, C., Zmood, R.: Application of neural
networks for real time control of a ball–beam system. In:
Proc. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks,
Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 2397–2402 (1995)
View publication stats
N.B. Almutairi, M. Zribi
21. Wang, Q., Mi, M., Ma, G., Spronck, P.: Evolving a neural
controller for a ball-and-beam system. In: Proc. Interna-
tional Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics,
pp. 757–761 (2004)
22. Eaton, P., Prokhorov, D., Wunsch, D.: Neurocontroller al-
ternatives for “fuzzy” ball-and-beam systems with nonuni-
form nonlinear friction. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 11(2),
423–435 (2000)
23. Hung, L.-C., Chung, H.-Y.: Decoupled control using neural
network-based sliding-mode controller for nonlinear sys-
tems. Expert Syst. Appl. 32(4), 1168 (2007)
24. Glower, J., Munighan, J.: Designing fuzzy controllers from
a variable structures standpoint. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
5(1), 138–144 (1997)
25. Lo, J.-C., Kuo, Y.-H.: Decoupled fuzzy sliding-mode con-
trol. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 6(3), 426–435 (1998)
26. Ordonez, R., Zumberge, J., Spooner, J., Passino, K.: Adap-
tive fuzzy control: experiments and comparative analyses.
IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 5(2), 167–188 (1997)
27. Wang, L.-X.: Stable and optimal fuzzy control of linear sys-
tems. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 6(1), 137–143 (1998)
28. Yu, W., Ortiz, F.: Stability analysis of PD regulation for
ball and beam system. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Con-
trol Applications, CCA’05, Toronto, Canada, pp. 517–522
(2005)
29. Rodríguez, F.O., Yu, W., Feregrino, R.L., Serrano,
J.D.J.M.: Stable PD control for ball and beam system. In:
Proc. International Symposium on Robotics and Automa-
tion, Querétaro, México, pp. 333–338 (2004)
30. Simmons, A.T., Hung, J.Y.: Hybrid control of systems with
poorly defined relative degree: The ball-on-beam example.
In: Proc. The 30th Annual Conference of the IEEE In-
dustrial Electronics Society, Busan, Korea, pp. 2436–2440
(2004)
31. Marton, L., Lantos, B.: Stable adaptive ball and beam con-
trol. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Mecha-
tronics, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 507–512 (2006)
32. Ashrafiuon, H., Erwin, R.S.: Sliding control approach to
underactuated multibody systems. In: Proc. American Con-
trol Conference, Boston, MA, pp. 1283–1288 (2004)
33. Nikkhah, M., Ashrafiuon, H.: Optimal sliding-mode con-
trol for underactuated systems. In: Proc. American Control
Conference, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 4688–4693 (2006)
34. Quanser, Ball and Beam, Experiment. Quanser Consulting
(1991)
35. Jo, N.H., Seo, J.H.: A state observer for nonlinear systems
and its application to Ball and Beam system. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 45(5), 968–973 (2000)
36. Franklin, G.F., Powell, J.D., Workman, M.L.: Digital Con-
trol of Dynamic Systems, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Menlo
Park (1998)