Professional Documents
Culture Documents
H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
a
Mechatronics Department, Alexandria Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology, Alexandria, Egypt
b
Electrical Department, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
KEYWORDS Abstract Active Magnetic Bearings (AMBs) are broadly utilized for high angular speed machines
Active magnetic bearings; such as turbo-machinery, compressors and high speed motors. In AMBs, the rotating parts run
PID; without physical contacts with the moving parts. This reduces maintenance costs and minimizes
Fractional PID; friction. Generally, the applied loads cause extra gyroscopic effects on the rotating parts especially
Gyroscopic effects; under high-speed operation. Although conventional PID controllers are widely employed in these
Particle swarm optimization systems, they experience some stability problems under high dynamic operations. In this paper,
the design of an active magnetic bearing system based on fractional order PID (FOPID) controllers
to enhance system dynamics and stability is introduced. The suggested controller gains are opti-
mized utilizing particle swarm optimization (PSO) approach. An ordinary AMB system framework
with four radial bearings is used to assess the suggested FOPID controller against routine PID con-
trollers. The system current limitation, overshoot constraint, and time specifications requirements
are deemed in the optimization technique.
Ó 2018 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Under open loop operation, AMBs systems are inherently generalized concept of mutual inductance in the fractional
unstable [3] while exhibit some dynamic problems at high order domain. This study highlights the importance of using
speed rotations. In addition, the dynamic performance of an Fractional order controllers for fractional order applications.
AMB is highly affected by gyroscopic effects especially at high In this regard [18], the fractional order model of the DC motor
rotational speeds. was proposed and a combination between PID and FOPID
Thanks to their simplicity, conventional PID controllers are were implemented to control the system. Recently, FOPID
usually employed in most of industrial AMBs systems. In [1], a was employed to control magnetically levitated systems. In
conventional PID controller is used by the aid of multiobjec- [19], the design of FO controller was done for a simple con-
tive genetic algorithm (MOGA) to get an improved system struction of magnetically levitation system. The work had sim-
performance. Generally, it is difficult to control the complex plified the way of tuning parameters as it had been chosen by
structure of an AMB with the only three parameters of PID. the overshoot requirements rather than using complex fre-
Therefore, the technique in [1] used more complex PID struc- quency domain characteristics or artificial intelligence. Finally,
ture, namely, PID with notch, lag-lead, and low pass filter. The this work had compared between PID and FO performances
optimization strategy of the approach developed was to intro- as usual in similar studies. The work in [25] had shown benefit
duce the sensitivity-based parameter reduction in combination of utilizing FOPID controllers to increase robustness of the
with the hierarchical evaluation procedure of fitness functions controller applied on a motor generator system. While in [26]
using MOGA. In [2], an optimization strategy was carried out the author had shown that actice disturbance on complex non-
for controlling flexible rotor magnetic bearing system. Another linear two way drive system can bereduced using FOPI.
control on magnetically levitated micro permanent magnet Recently, the intelligent optimization techniques have been
(PM) motors by two types of active magnetic bearings was useful for tuning PID and FOPID parameters. The Particle
introduced in [5], where PD controller was implemented for Swarm Optimization (PSO) does not entail mutation or cross-
such micro PM system. The relation between speeds and con- over operation. Therefore, it is preferred over other techniques
trol current were also investigated. The conventional PID con- like genetic algorithms [21]. One of PSO advantages is that it
troller had shown acceptable experimental results in [6] on a has a memory, where all best achieved solutions are memo-
simple construction of AMB. In [7], a co-simulation using rized; therefore, the next iterations search for the global solu-
MATLAB and ADAMS were performed for high speed flexi- tion. Generally, PSO can create higher quality solutions with
ble rotor that used AMBs. The controller and actuator are the least computation time, which can also be controlled by
modeled in MATLAB while the plant model is modeled using choosing less number of iterations [22].
the ADAMS software. The simulation results in [7] showed In this paper, an optimal design for PID and FOPID con-
that for the designed control parameters, the flexible rotor trollers employed to an AMB with four DOF has been intro-
can rotate at its rated speed without much run outs. In [8] a duced. The tuning of the gain parameters for both
teaching learning based optimization (TLBO) was used to controllers was done using PSO. The control strategy aims
optimize the parameters of a PID controller on a magnetically to minimize the integration of error signal (IAE) to achieve
levitated system. the best response. Considering the current and saturation lim-
In spite of traditional PID controllers can give good itations for both controllers was crucial in this work. The study
dynamic performance in typical AMB systems as utilized in aims at studying the effect of shaft speed variation under high-
the literature, they encounters some stability issues due to speed operation while the gyroscopic effects are also
the inherent system instability under variable speed operation. investigated.
Therefore, much work was executed out in the available liter-
ature using various types of controllers to ameliorate the 2. Structure of four DOF AMBs
dynamic execution of AMBs. Although voltage control
method is better than current control method in AMB systems In a 4DOF AMB system the rotating shaft is suspended by
[9,10], it always suffers from the mismatched disturbances act- radial magnetic bearings at both ends. As shown in Fig. 1,
ing on the system. A controller dependent upon disturbance the shaft is radially suspended at A and B by differential
observer was introduced in [11] for precision suspension of AMBs.
voltage controlled AMB system. A Linear Quadratic Gaussian Fig. 1 is explained as follow [1,2,9]
(LQG) controller, consisting of an extended kalman filter and
an optimal state feedback regulator, is implemented in [12]. d mA , d mB are the distances between the shaft center of gravity
This helps to achieve better system dynamics and higher bear- COG and the magnetic bearings at the shaft ends A and B
ing stiffness with least energy effort compared to PID [13,14]. respectively.
Fractional order PID (FOPID) is the basal structure of the d sA , d sB are the distances between the shaft center of gravity
classical PID. FOPID is a 5DOF controller because the inte- COG and the proximity sensors at the shaft ends A and B
grator and differentiator orders can also be tuned. This advan- respectively.
tage increases the system flexibility, improves the dynamic a and b are the inclination angles of the shaft around x and
performance, and makes the control system less sensitive to y axis respectively, x is the angular speed of the shaft along
external disturbances. Some references in the literature com- z axis.
pared between PID and FOPID performances [15,16]. The x is the angular speed of the shaft along z axis.
comparative study between PID and FOPID has proved that AMBxA AMBxB ,AMByA and AMByB are the active magnetic
FOPID is more robust and flexible. FOPID has gathered a bearings in two axis x and y, P :S A and P :S B are proximity
great attention in applications that are inherently introduced sensors
as fractional order and for applications that need higher f Ax ; f Bx ; f Ay andf By are forces created by
dynamic performances. The work in [17] has introduced the AMBxA AMBxB ,AMByA and AMByB respectively.
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
A fractional order PID control strategy 3
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
4 Ahmed Mohamed Abdel-Hafez Shata et al.
MR€ þ GR_ ¼ BKs BT R þ Ki ð7Þ shown in (8). To solve this mathematical challenge, the system
states can be easily divided into multiplied integrators, as
shown in Fig. 3. Each state is divided to ten states; this makes
3. Fractional order PIn Dk controller the base order of the system to be s0:1 1
. This way, the gain
n and k can have any value but with one decimal point.
The fractional order PIn Dk is a generalized form for the con- Increasing the number of decimal points requires increasing
ventional PID controller. The transfer function of the con- the system order. For simplicity, the work presented here will
troller is represented as follow [20,21]: be limited to gain values with a one decimal point. Conse-
Ti quently, the state equations are rewritten as follow [19]:
Gfopid ðsÞ ¼ Tp þ þ Td sk ð8Þ
Sn s0:1 x1 ¼ x2
where Tp ; Ti and Td are the controller gains, whilen and k s0:1 x2 ¼ x3
...
are the integrator and differentiator orders respectively.
The integrator and differentiator orders in (8) could be any
real number, integer, non-integer or even a complex number. s0:1 x19 ¼ x20
ð9Þ
The fractional order PID is a five degree of freedom controller. s x20 ¼ M BKs BT x1 M1 Gx10 þ M1 BKi x21
0:1 1
The controller block diagram using FOPID is similar to con- 0:1 0:1
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .
ventional PID except that the mathematical calculations are
more complex than PID. Fig. 3 shows the closed loop block 0 0 I 0
CTi CTp 0 CTd 0
diagram for the 4DOF AMB system using FOPID.
The main difference between PID and FOPID is that the ð10Þ
integral and differential orders n and k respectively are adap-
where CTp and CTd position in the matrix of Eq. (21) is
tive in FOPID, which could be any non-integer number, as
determined by the value of k.
Fig. 3 Closed loop block diagram of control on 4DOF AMB system using FOPID.
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
A fractional order PID control strategy 5
(2) Compute the state transition matrix as follow in Eq. (11) Assume that s0:1 equals k and substitute in (17), hence;
0:1
s I A1 ¼ jkI Aj1 ð1;1Þ
ð1;1Þ
1 1
/ðtÞ ¼ L js I Aj n
ð11Þ
b11 k12 þ b12 k11 þ a13 k10 þ a14 k9 þ þ b110
¼
a11 k22 þ a12 k21 þ a13 k20 þ a14 k19 þ þ a121 k þ a122
ð18Þ
(3) Get the integration of absolute error IAE as in (12)
Eq. (18) can now be divided using partial fraction decom-
position as follow:
Z ts
IAE ¼ jeðtÞjdt ð12Þ jkI Aj1 ð1;1Þ ¼ ky
x1
1
þ ky
x2
2
þ ky
x3
3
þ ky
x4
4
þ þ ky
x22
22
0
¼ s0:1xy
1
þ s0:1xy
2
þ s0:1xy
3
þ s0:1xy
4
þ þ s0:1xy
22
where 1 2 3 4 22
ð19Þ
eðtÞ ¼ C /ðtÞ Rð0Þ ð13Þ
To get the inverse Laplace of (19), each fraction must be
and Rð0Þ ¼ ðXse0 ; a0 ; Yse0 ; b0 ÞT is the initial shaft position vector. inversed separately as follow:
The system is constrained by two important limitations as x1 x1 1
follow: ¼
s0:1 y1 s0:1 ð1 sy0:11 Þ
(1) The control current should not exceed its maximum x1 y1 y1 2 y1 3
¼ 0:1 ð1 þ 0:1 þ ð 0:1 Þ þ ð 0:1 Þ þ Þ ð20Þ
limit to avoid core saturation, which affects the system s s s s
stability. The maximum current is calculated as follows: Eq. (20) can now be inversed easily using the inverse
Laplace laws as follow:
Imax ¼ ðNumax Þ=L ð14Þ
x1 t0:1 y y 2 t0:1
L1 0:1 ¼ x1 ð pffiffiffi þ 1 þ 1 pffiffiffi þ Þ ð21Þ
s y1 p 1 0:1 p
umax ¼ Bsat Ag ð15Þ
The series in (21) is infinite; therefore it is solved using a
(2) Maximum overshoot is very important to be below the fractional calculus method called Mittag-Leffler which is
air gap clearance to avoid the shaft impact with the defined as follow:
bearings. X
1
ðfnÞl
E a;b ðfnÞ ¼ ð22Þ
l¼0
Cðal þ bÞ
4.2. Finding the state transition matrix Therefore, by using the Mittag Leffler series to solve (21),
the solution will have the following form:
In this subsection the mathematical approach for finding the X
1 l
ðy1 t0:1 Þ
state transition matrix is presented. The following example E 0:1;1 ðy1 t0:1 Þ ¼ ð23Þ
Cð0:1l þ 1Þ
explains how to get the state transition for a FOPID controller l¼0
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
6 Ahmed Mohamed Abdel-Hafez Shata et al.
Angle (rad)
Yse 0 m 0.05
0
both PID and FOPID controllers based on the design criterion
describes in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. Three parameters
-0.05
were optimized in PID which are Tp ; Ti and Td . The same
as PID, Tp ; Ti and Td were optimized in the case of FOPID,
however a trial and error method were used to select -0.1
n and k. The PSO was carried out with 10 swarm size and 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (sec)
10 iterations. The mathematical approaches needed for control
was applied to the algorithm to evaluate the objective function. Fig. 4 Angle of inclination response using PID Controller.
The global best solution given by PSO is conditionally
restricted by the current limitations given by (20). The AMB
system parameters are given in Table 1 and the initial shaft Response of deviation angle at n=0.1
position is assumed as appears in Table 2. 0.1
5.1. The effect of controllers on system poles and overall system 0.08
stability
0.06
The first comparison between PID and FOPID is a general
(rad)
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
A fractional order PID control strategy 7
200 20
Imaginary Axis
100
10
Conjugate
Current (A)
Poles
Dominant
0 Poles
0
-100
-10
-200
-20
-300
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Real Axis -30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (sec)
Fig. 6 Closed Loop poles locations of AMB system using PID.
Fig. 8 The Current variations at using PID controller.
3
0
2
-0.05
1
Current (A)
Imag Axis
-0.1
0 π /20 Unstable
region
-0.15
-1
-0.2
-2
-0.25
-3
-4 -0.3
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Real Axis Time (sec)
Fig. 7 Closed Loop Poles Location at using FOPID at. Fig. 9 Control Current variations with time using FOPID.
n ¼ 0:1 and k ¼ 1:1.
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
8 Ahmed Mohamed Abdel-Hafez Shata et al.
Response of α using FOPID 5.3. Investigating the speed variation effects on FOPID and PID
0.12
n=0.1, k=1.1 controllers
n=0.2, k=1.3
0.1 n=0.3, k=1.3
n=0.4,k=1.1 In this subsection, the effect of a sudden speed variation has
0.08 n=0.5,k=1.7
been studied for both controller PID and FOPID. Increasing
the rotational speed affects the system behavior as depicted
Angle (rad)
0.06
by (6) which consequently affects the dominant poles location
0.04 of the system. At very high rotational speeds the gyroscopic
effect increases as introduced before. The simulation is carried
0.02 out using n ¼ 0:1 and k ¼ 1:1. Fig. 11 shows the effect of
0
increasing the speed up to 7000 rad=s when using PID.
Fig. 12 illustrates the positions of the dominant poles at vari-
-0.02 ous speeds, it is clear that as the speed increases the dominant
poles becomes closer to the imaginary axis which affects the
-0.04 stability of the system. As shown in Fig. 12 the range of critical
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Time (sec) speed could be estimated from the graph as it is about
5500 rad=sec and the system exhibits instability at higher
Fig. 10 Response using FOPID with various integral and
differential orders.
Poles Location on s-plane using n=0.1
4
Displacement angle α using PID at ω =7000 rad/sec
0.15
3
0.1 2 Dominant
Poles
Imaginary Axis
1
Angle (rad)
0.05
0 Unstable
π /20
region
0
-1
-0.05 -2
-3
-0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (sec) -4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Real axis
Fig. 11 Response using PID Controller under high speed.
Fig. 13 Poles location at using FOPID under high speed
60,000 rpm.
Closed Loop Poles at Different Speeds
500
ω =50 rad/sec
400 ω =50 rad/sec
ω =100 rad/sec
Response of deviation angle α at n=0.1
ω =100 rad/sec
0.12
300
ω =500 rad/sec ω=100rad/sec
ω =500 rad/sec
Imaginary Axis
200 0.1
ω =1000 rad/sec ω=7000rad/sec
ω =1000 rad/sec
100
ω =5000 rad/sec 0.08 ω=10000rad/sec
ω =5000 rad/sec
0
ω =5600 rad/sec
ω =5600 rad/sec 0.06
-100 ω =7000 rad/sec
α (rad)
ω =7000 rad/sec
-200 ω =100 rad/sec 0.04
-300
0.02
-400
-500 0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Real Axis
-0.02
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020
A fractional order PID control strategy 9
velocities. However, the FOPID poles location was nearly the [8] S. Yadav, S. Verna, S.K. Nagar, Performance enhancement of
same as shown in Fig. 13 which gave actually the same magnetic levitation system using technical learning based
response at the high speed 7000 rad=s, that is because FO optimization, Alexandria Eng. J. 56 (4) (2017) 469–475.
systems has divided the closed loop states which leads to [9] G. Schweitzer, H. Bleuler, A. Traxler, Magnetic Bearings
Theory, Design and Application to Rotatory Achinery,
decreasing the effect of high speeds on system stability.
Springer, 2009.
Fig. 14 illustrates the response using n ¼ 0:1 and k ¼ 1:1 [10] A. Chiba, T. Fukao, M. Oshima, Magnetic bearings and
and various speeds at x ¼ 100; 7000 and 10; 000 rad=sec: bearingless drives, Newness, 2005.
[11] C. Peng, J. Fang, X. Xu, Mismatched disturbance rejection
6. Conclusion control for voltage controlled active magnetic bearing via state
space disturbance observer, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 5 (5)
(2015) 2753–2762.
This paper introduces a comparative study between PID and
[12] T. Shumann, W. Hofmann, R. Werner, Improving operational
FOPID controllers on 4DOF AMB systems with 4 radial bear- performance of active magnetic bearings using kalman filter and
ings at both shaft ends. The FOPID controller is the general- state feedback control, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 59 (2) (2012)
ized mathematical form of a conventional PID where the 821–829.
differentiator and integrator orders, k and n respectively, are [13] J. Fang, S. Zheng, B. Hans, Attitude sensing and dynamics
also controllable. In the FOPID controller, k and n where cho- decoupling based on active magnetic bearing of MSDGCMG,
sen randomly and the gain parameters Tp ; Ti and Td where IEEE Trans. Instrum. Measurmenet 61 (2) (2012) 338–648.
optimized using the PSO algorithm. Using PID only, three [14] T. Tezuka, N. Kurita, T. Ishikawa, Design and simulation of a
parameters are optimized using the same optimization method. five degree of freedom active control magnetic levitated motor,
IEEE Trans. Magn. 49 (5) (2013) 2257–2262.
The fitness function considered in this work is the integration
[15] A. Mahmood, B.F. Mohammed, Design optimal fractional
of error signal IAE. The results have shown that although PID
order PID controller utilizing particle swarm optimization
can be employed as a valid controller, it experiences some sta- algorithm and discretization method, Int. J. Emerging Sci.
bility problems under high speed conditions. On the other Eng. (IJESE) 1 (10) (2013) 2319–6378.
hand FOPID performance was much improved in terms of a [16] M. Chakraborty, D. Maiti, A. Komar, The application of
low overshoot and low rise and settling times. The research stochastic optimization algorithm to the design of fractional
demonstrated that the FOPID controller can effectively relo- order PID controller, in: IEEE region 10 colloquium and the
cate the system dominant poles in better positions such that third ICIIS, Dec. 8–10, Kharagpur, INDIA, 2008.
system stability is guaranteed under a higher speed range when [17] A. Soltan, A.G. Radwan, A. Soliman, Fractional-order mutual
compared with a conventional PID controller. At about inductance: analysis and design, Int. J. Circ. Theory Appl. 44 (1)
(2015) 85–97, Wiley.
7000 rad=sec for the considered case study, the gyroscopic
[18] W. Lin, Z. Chongquan, Design of optimal fractional-order PID
effects increases on the rotating shaft. Using PID leads to com-
controllers using particle swarm optimization algorithm for DC
plete system instability. However using FOPID; the response motor system, in: IEEE Advanced Information Technology,
under high speeds is much improved. It has been shown that Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), Dec.
FOPID can successfully diminish the effect of gyroscopic 2015, pp. 175–179.
effects. Moreover it boosts the system flexibility and [19] S. Folea, C. Muresan, R. Keyser, C. Lonescu, Theoretical
robustness. analysis and experimental validation of a simplified fractional
order controller for a magnetic levitation system, IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Tech. 24 (2) (2016) 756–763.
References [20] A. Shata, R. Hamdy, A. Abdel-Khalik, I. Elarabawy, A particle
swarm optimization for optimum design of fractional order PID
[1] C. Wei, D. Soffker, Optimization strategy for PID controller controller in active magnetic bearing systems, in: International Middle
design of AMB rotor systems, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Tech. East Power System Conference, Dec. 27–29, Cairo, Egypt, 2016.
24 (2016) 788–803. [21] X. Yang, Engineering Optimization an Introduction with
[2] S. Zheng, B. Han, Y. Wang, J. Zhou, Optimization of damping Metaheuristic Applications, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey,
compensation for a flexible rotor system with active magnetic 2010 (Chapter 15).
bearing considering gyroscopic effects, IEEE Trans. [22] A. Monje, Y. Chen, B. Vinagre, D. Xue, V. Feliu, Fractional-
Mechatronics 20 (3) (2015) 1130–1137. Order Systems and Controls Fundamentals and Applications,
[3] S. Young, Z. Lin, P. Allaire, Control of Surge in Centrifugal Springer, 2010.
Compressors by Active Magnetic Bearings, Springer, 2013. [23] A. Mathai, H. Haubold, Special Functions for Applied
[4] A.L. Mohamadein, R.A. Hamdy, Ayman S. Abdel-khalik, Scientists, Springer, 2008.
Transient model of mixed pole machines with eccentric [24] I. Pan, S. Das, Intelligent Fractional Order Systems and
reluctance rotor, Alexandria Eng. J. 43 (4) (2004) 455–466. Control, Springer, 2013.
[5] M. Komori, T. Yamane, Magnetically levitated micro PM [25] L. Angel, J. Viola, Design and statistical robustness analysis of
motors by two types of active magnetic bearings, IEEE/ASME FOPID, IOPID and SIMC PID controllers applied to a motor-
Trans. Mechatronics 6 (1) (Mar. 2001) 43–49. generator systems, IEEE Latin Am. Trans. Control Syst. Tech.
[6] J. Ritonja, B. Bolajzer, P. Cafuta, D. Dolinar, Active magnetic 13 (12) (2015) 3724–3734.
bearing control, in: 29th Chinese Control Conference, Jul. 29-31, [26] K. Erenturk, Fractional order PID and active disturbance
Beijing, China, 2010. rejection control of nonlinear two-mass drive system, IEEE
[7] K. Lee, D. Hong, Y. Jeong, C. Kim, M. Lee, Dynamic Trans. Ind. Electron. 60 (9) (2013) 3806–3813.
simulation of radial active magnetic bearing system for high [27] J. Zhong, L. Li, Tuning fractional order PID controllers for a
speed rotor using ADAMS and MATLAB o-simulation, in: 8th solid core magnetic bearing system, IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Technol 23 (4) (2015) 1648–1656.
Engineering, Aug., Seoul, Korea, 2012. [28] R.C. Hibbeler, Engineering Mechanics Dynamics, Prentice-
Hall, 1998.
Please cite this article in press as: A.-M.A.H. Shata et al., A fractional order PID control strategy in active magnetic bearing systems, Alexandria Eng. J. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.020