A Nonlinear Backstepping Control Design for Ball and

Beam System
Abdulhakim A. Ezzabi, Ka C Cheok and Fatma A. Alazabi
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan, USA 48309-4401
Email: { aaezzabi, cheok, faalazab } @oakland.edu
Abstract In this paper, a technique for designing a Ball

and Beam System controller based on a nonlinear

backstepping design is presented. A control law is
developed, and asymptotic stability based on a Lyapunov
stability criterion is satisfied. The goal is to design a
controller for the ball position with the least overall
energy consumption and minimum overshoot. In order to
illustrate the efficiency of the proposed control strategy,
the simulations are demonstrated and compared with [1].
The results show that the nonlinear backstepping design
gives a smoother performance and needs less input
magnitude compared to the LQR design. Moreover, the
robustness of the proposed design with respect to
parameter variations and different reference inputs is
examined, and the simulations validated the control
scheme.

beam is tilted by a DC servo motor together with a ball

rolling back and forth on the track of the beam as shown in
Figure (1). One side of the long beam is supported by a
pinned arm, and other side is connected by a level arm which
is coupled to a gear driven by a DC servo motor with a
reducing gearbox [1]. The position of the ball can be obtained
by measuring the output voltage of the potentiometers.

Key words: Ball and Beam System, Nonlinear BackStepping

(BS) control, Lyapunov stability, Trajectory tracking.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Ball and Beam System is one of the most widely used
systems [1],[4]. The nonlinearity and instability of the system
opened the window for studying the control systems [1].
Changing of the ball position without limit for fixed input of
beam angle makes the system an open loop unstable system.
In order to stabilize the system, many control techniques such
as gain scheduling PID [3], fuzzy control [4], and LQR design
[1] have been applied to the system.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the Ball
and Beam System is described and modeled, Section 3 is
devoted to illustrate the backstepping controller design in
detail, in Section 4, the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR)
controllers is designed, and finally, the simulation results
between both controllers and the conclusion are demonstrated
in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.
II.

BALL AND BEAM STATE SPACE MODELING

This section provides a brief description of the modeling of

the Ball and Beam System. The system consists of five main
parts: ball, beam, two arms, gear, and DC servo motor. The

978-1-4799-0066-4/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Fig.1 Ball and Beam system

The dynamic model of the Ball and Beam System can be
written as [1]:
(1)
m 
x ( t ) = m g sin ( t ) m g c o s ( t )
Figure (1) shows the body diagram of the Ball and Beam
System. From the body diagram, the analysis of the force
balance is obtained by Newtons law where x, , m, g , and
represent the ball position on the beam, beam angle from the
horizontal position, ball mass, gravity acceleration, and the
friction constant, respectively. By assuming that the beam

angle is too small (t ) < 10 and there is no friction applied

to the system, mx(t ) = mg (t ) is determined.

The relationship between the beam angle and the gear
angle can be approximated as:
r
(2)
(t ) (t )
L
where r is gear radius, and L is is beam length.
By manipulating the dynamic equation (1) and substituting
the assumptions and equation (2) into (1), the transfer
function can be represented in the state-space form and output

1318

From equation (13), if 1 ( z1 ) = c1 z1 + xd , equation (11) can

be exponential stable as t where c1 is a design parameter.

equation as stated in (3) and (4) where defined variables are

as follows [1]:
x = [ x1 x 2
x3
x 4 ] T = [ x ( t ) x ( t ) ( t )  ( t ) ] T
and

[]

Step2. From equation (8), the state space equation for z2 is:

denotes transpose

0
x 1

0
x 2
=
x 3
0

x 4
0

y ( t ) = [1

0
gr
L
0
0

0
0
0
0

z2 = z3 + 2 ( z1 , z2 ) 1 ( z1 )

x1
0

0
x2
+
0
x3

x4
1

0 ] x (t )

(3)
u (t )

(4)

where x D R is a state vector, y is the output of the ball

position , and u R is the input voltage of the motor for the
Ball and Beam System. In addition, we have chosen to omit
the dynamic behavior of the motor [2]:
d
di
(5)
Lm
+ Rm i + k m motor = V
dt
dt
motor = ki i
(6)
where Lm , Rm , km , ki are motor constants, motor is a motor
angle, V and i are motors voltage and current. We have
assumed the motor dynamics (5) to be much faster than the
upcoming backstepping control system for (3).
III.

BACKSTEPPING DESING

Nonlinear backstepping control is a design approach for

the Ball and Beam System model. A systematic construction
of both feedback control laws and associated Lyapunov
functions has been involved in the backstepping control.
backstepping control consists of designing a series of control
laws recursively by using some of the state variables in a
system as virtual controls [5],[ 6], [7]. It is seen from the
model equation (3) that ball position can be controlled by
measuring the output voltage of the potentiometer.
In order to design the backstepping control system, the new
state variables are defined as:
(7)
z1 = x1 xd

(14)

where 1 ( z1 ) = c1 z1 + 
xd = c1 ( z2 c1 z1 ) + 
xd
Since equation (14) includes the information of equation (11),
the CLF is selected as:
1
(15)
V 2 ( z1 , z 2 ) = V1 ( z1 ) + z 22
2
V2 ( z1 , z2 ) = V1 ( z1 ) + z2 z2
(16)
= c1 z12 + z2 z3 + z2 ( z1 + 2 ( z1 , z2 ) 1 ( z1 ))
If the stabilized function 2 in equation (16) is defined as

2 ( z1 , z2 ) = c2 z2 z1 + 1 ( z1 ) , where c2 > 0 is a design

parameter, then 2 can be rearranged as:

2 ( z1 , z2 ) = (c1 + c2 ) z2 (1 c12 ) z1 + xd

2
2
Therefore, V ( z , z ) = z z c z c z
2

2 3

1 1

(17)
(18)

2 2

Step3. From equation (9), the state space equation for z3 is

z3 = z4 + 3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 )  2 ( z1 , z2 )

(19)

where  2 ( z1 , z2 ) = c2 z2 z1 + 1 , 1 = c12 z1 c1 z2 + 

xd
Since equation (19) includes the information of equations
(11) and (14), the CLF is selected as
1
(20)
V 3 ( z1 , z 2 , z 3 ) = V 2 ( z1 , z 2 ) + z 32
2
Then,
V3 ( z1, z2 , z3 ) = V2 ( z1, z2 ) + z3 z3
= c1 z12 c2 z22 + z3 z4 + z3 ( z2 + 3 ( z1, z2 , z3 )  2 ( z1, z2 ))

(21)

If the stabilized function 3 in equation (21) is defined as

3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 ) = c3 z3 +  2 ( z1 , z2 ) z2 , where c3 > 0 is a
design parameter, then 3 can be rearranged as:
3 ( z1, z2 , z3 ) = (2c1 + c13 c2 ) z1 (2 c12 c22 ) z2 (c1 + c2 + c3 ) z3 + 
xd

(22)

z 2 = x2 1 ( z1 )

(8)

Therefore, V3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 ) = c z c z c z + z3 z4 (23)

z3 = x3 2 ( z1 , z2 )

(9)

Step4. From equation (10), the state space equation for z4 is:

z4 = x4 3 ( z1 , z 2 , z3 )

(10)

2
1 1

z4 = x4  3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 )

where xd is the desired position input and, 1 , 2 , and 3 are

stabilizing functions for the new state variables.
Step1. From equation (7), the state space equation for z1 is

z1 = z2 + 1 ( z1 ) xd

(11)

1 ( z1 ) should be selected through the Control Lyapunov

Function (CLF) to guarantee the stability of the control
system as
1
(12)
V1 ( z1 ) = z12
2
Then, V1 ( z1 ) = z1 z1 = z1 (1 ( z1 ) xd ) z1 z 2
(13)

= u  3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 )

2
2 2

2
3 3

(24)

where
3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 ) = (2c1 + c13 c2 ) z1 (2 c12 c22 ) z2 (c1 + c2 + c3 ) z3 + 
xd
By substituting 3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 ) into equation (24), we have
z4 = x4 + (2c1 + c13 c2 ) z1 + (2 c12 c22 ) z2 + (c1 + c2 + c3 ) z3 
xd

(25)

Since equation (24) includes the information of z1 , z2 , and z3

, the CLF is selected as
1
(26)
V 4 ( z1 , z 2 , z 3 , z 4 ) = V 3 ( z1 , z 2 , z 3 ) + z 42
2

1319

V4 ( z1, z 2 , z3 , z 4 ) = V3 ( z1, z 2 , z3 ) + z 4 z4

= c1 z12 c2 z 22 + c3 z32 + z 4 ( z3 + u  3 ( z1 , z 2 , z3 ))

(27)

To satisfy the system stability in equation (27), the

backstepping control law can be selected as
u = c4 z4 z3 +  3 ( z1 , z2 , z3 )
(28)
IV.

LQR CONTROL DESIGNS

In [1], the LQR design for the Ball and Beam model is
demonstrated in discrete time. For the reference purpose,
LQR law (u) that minimizes the performance measure can be
defined as[8]-[ 9]
J =

(x

(29)

(t )Q x (t ) + u T (t ) R u (t ) d t

where Q is a symmetric positive semidefinite weighting

matrix and R is a symmetric positive definite weighting matrix
(30)

u = k x ( t ) + k r y ref ( t )

where k is a control gain matrix, and k r is a control tracking

gain matrix. The optimal control of (30) that minimizes J can
be expressed as

u op ( t ) = R 1 B T Px ( t ) + H ( Acl ) 1 B

y ref ( t ) (31)

where Acl is the closed loop system matrix of (3), x ( t ) and

yref (t ) are the position and the position reference of the ball
respectively, H is a picking matrix which equals the
measurement of ball position, and P is the symmetric positive
definite solution of the Algebric Riccati Equation (ARE)
A T P + P A P B R 1 B T P + Q = 0

B. Simulation Results
In this section, the simulation results of the proposed
controller, which is performed on the model of the Ball and
Beam System, are presented. Moreover, a rectangular wave is
required in order for the ball position to follow the reference
value between 0.15m and 0.3m [1]. To examine the
effectiveness of the proposed trajectory tracking control
methodology, the simulations for the Ball and Beam System
were performed in MATLAB.
The simulation results of LQR design and nonlinear
backstepping design of tracking control performance for the
ball position are shown in Figure (3). The LQR
parameters are chosen as diag (Q) = (1500,1000,15,1) and
R = 1 , and the backstepping controller parameters are chosen
as c1 = 0.8, c2 = 3, c3 = 4, c4 = 20 . The control input
simulations for both designs are also considered to decide
which control design required less effort. The results proved
that nonlinear backstepping design requires less effort than
LQR as shown in Figure (4). Figure (5) shows the
performance of the gear angle for both LQR and backstepping
designs.

C. Robustness of the Proposed Controller

In order to validate the proposed control scheme for the Ball
and Beam system, a sinusoidal reference input is considered
as following:
xd = sin(0.25 t ) + sin(0.05 t )
(33)
and it was assumed that the beam length parameter of the
system has a perturbation of +25% of its original value.
Figure (6) shows the ball position tracking for sinusoidal
input without perturbation. Figure (7) displays the and ability
of the proposed design to track the sinusoidal reference in the
presence of the parameter perturbation.

(32)

Figure (2) shows the block diagram for Ball and Beam System
with LQR design.

Fig.2. LQR control structure

V.

SIMULATION AND RESULTS

A. Systems Parameters
The parameters of the Ball and Beam System are shown
in Table 1[1].
Symbol Parameter
Value
Unit
Radius of the gear
0.045
m

Length of the Beam 0.441

m

g
Gravity acceleration 9.8
m/s2
Fig.3. Tracking control performance by LQR and BS designs.

1320

Fig.7. Tracking of BS for the sinusoidal reference input with perturbation.

Fig. 4.Control input for LQR and (BS) design.

VII. CONCLUSION
This paper demonstrates a nonlinear backstepping design
for controlling the ball position of the ball and beam dynamic
system. The design procedures are discussed in detail, and the
comparison with the LQR design is provided. The results
show that the nonlinear backstepping design delivers a better
performance in terms of transient and steady state responses,
and needs less control effort than the LQR design. In
addition, the robustness of the proposed design with respect
to parameter variations and different reference inputs is
examined to validate the control scheme. Our future work
will consider the adaptive backstepping design with genetic
algorithms to handle more complex models.

Fig. 5 Gear angle performances for LQR and BS design.

Fig.6. Tracking of BS for the sinusoidal reference input without perturbation.

REFRENCES
[1] Z.-H. Pang, G. Zheng and C-X. Luo, Augmented State Estimation and
LQR Control for a Ball and Beam System, IEEE Conference on
Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), pp. 1328 - 1332, 2011.
[2] M. Keshmiri, A. Jahromi, A. Mohebbi, M. Amoozgar, W-F Xie,
Modeling and Control of Ball and Beam System Using Model Based
and Non-Model Based Control Approaches , International Journal on
Smart Sensing and Intelligent systems, vol. 5, pp.14-35, 2012.
[3] B. Krishna, S. Gangopadhyay, J. George, Design and Simulation of
Gain Scheduling PID Controller for Ball and Beam System,
International Conference on Systems, Signal Processing and Electronics
Engineering, 2012.
[4] M. Amjad, M.I. Kashif, S.S. B. Abdullah, Z. Shareef, Fuzzy Logic
Control of Ball and Beam System, International Conference on
Eduction Technology and Computer, v3, pp.489-493, 2010.
[5] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive
Control Design, John Wiley and Sons, 1995
[6] R. Wai, Kun-lum L. Chuang, Design of Backstepping ParticleSwarmoptimisation Control for Maglev Transportation System,IEEE on
IET Control Theory & Applications vol.4, pp.625 645, 2010.
[7] F.Mazenc,A.Astolfi, R. Lozano, Lyapunov Function for the Ball and
Beam:Robustness Property,IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
vol.2, pp.1208 1213.1999.
[8] S. Zak, Systems and Control, Oxford University Press, USA, 2002.
[9] C. Kumar, S. Lal, N. Patra, K. Halder, M. Reza, Optimal Controller
Design for Inverted Pendulum System based on LQR method, IEEE
international conference on ICACCCT, pp.259 263, 2012.

1321