ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 1

MAGNETIC LEVITATION SYSTEM

ENGR4220 SEMESTER PROJECT

1 Project Overview
In this semester project, you will design a magnetic levitation system. The
goal is to have a relatively lightweight metallic object ”hover” suspended
at a small distance below the magnetic solenoid (Figure 1). The levitated
object is attracted by an electromagnet that is placed above the sphere.
The control problem consists of balancing the gravitational force against the
electromagnetic force in such a way that small disturbances do not change
the object’s equilibrium position. Specifically, the magnetic force F , which
is determined by the current I through the electromagnet, overcomes gravity
(the mass of the object is m) and pulls the object upward. For this purpose
of establishing feedback control, a distance sensor needs to be provided, and
the current through the solenoid needs to be controlled in such a fashion that
the distance of the levitated object to the solenoid is constant. The semester
project is largely a design project, and the path to a viable solution is not
prescribed. There are some mandatory components, however, and those are
specifically highlighted.
To provide an overview, the design steps comprise:

1. Design and fabrication of the levitation process composed of the sup-

port frame, the solenoid and the levitated object

2. Design of a distance sensor

3. Mathematical description of the levitator process and the sensor

4. Design of a controller

5. Analysis of the closed-loop system (transient response, disturbance

rejection, stability) with possible changes to the controller design to
improve the quality of the control system

6. Demonstration of the working closed-loop system

The grading breakdown is described in Section 9. Please consider from

the get-go that there will be bonus point awards for exceptionally good
designs (see Section 9).
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 2

L.O.

Figure 1: Sketch of the process, that is, the magnetic levitation system and its
frame. A solenoid coil (S) is suspended from the frame (F). The levitated object
(L.O.) is attracted by the magnetic force of the solenoid. The attractive (upward)
force depends on the current through the solenoid. A distance sensor (D) provides
a signal that depends on the distance of the levitated object from the solenoid.

Grading milestone #1 (3 points): Identify your team members (4-

5 members per team, points deducted for deviations from that number).
Select a team leader. Prepare as the first page of your report the list of
team members. Turn in that page.

2 Design of the Process

The first step in this semester project is the design of the process, which
should be functionally similar to the one shown in Figure 1. It is suggested
that you begin by selecting an object to levitate. This can be any ferromag-
netic object, such as an iron bolt or a sheet metal world globe. You then
need to design the solenoid. Remember that the magnetic field is determined
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 3

by the solenoid current and the number of turns. The wire gauge limits the
current, but a large wire diameter also limits the number of turns you can
wrap. You may opt to make your own solenoid or obtain an off-the-shelf
solenoid. In the latter case, very limited funds are available to purchase a
solenoid. In general, the price should not exceed $10. A self-wound solenoid
may be constructed as follows: Use a long 1/4 inch iron bolt (approx. 3 in
long) and cover it with some insulating material, such as thin PVC pipe:
The length of the Pipe could be 2 in. Two 3-in diameter disks with a 1/4
inch hole are placed at the ends of the pipe, thereby creating a bobbin. Use
approximately 170 meters of 22ga transformer wire and carefully wrap the
wire around the core. You should be able to create a coil with approximately
500 turns. Note that such a long copper wire has a non-negligible resistance
(approx. 5 Ohms), and a suitably high drive voltage is necessary. When
designing a coil, consider your current needs, the coil resistance, the neces-
sary voltage, and the power dissipation. Large coils can get very hot very
easily (this is why today’s MRI magnets are superconducting)! However,
your magnetic force increases with n2 (n=number of turns).
Next, find a relationship between the solenoid current, the distance of
the solenoid to the levitated object, and the force exerted on the object.
Hint: The equations are nonlinear. Ideally, you should support this rela-
tionship with experimental data, because this will help your design later.

Grading milestone #2 (27 points): A completed assembly that con-

sists of the support frame, the solenoid, and the levitated object (13 points).
The solenoid must be strong enough that, when energized with DC current,
the levitated object sticks to the solenoid (5 points). Equations that relate
magnetic force to current and distance must accompany this milestone (10
points). Turn in your amended report.

3 Mathematical Description of the Process

Provide the Laplace-domain transfer function of the process with the dis-
tance D(s) between solenoid and levitated object as the output variable
and the solenoid current IS (s) as the input variable. Include a time-variable
force F (s), acting on the levitated object, as another input variable. It
is recommended that you start with the balance of forces and develop the
constituent differential equation. Note that it is allowable to cancel gravity
against a constant component of the magnetic force (i.e, set the gravitational
force to zero). Note also that the relationship of the magnetic force and the
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 4

solenoid current is nonlinear. If you have quantitative data, for example,

from an experiment, perform a formal linearization. Otherwise, simply use
a real-valued proportionality α, whereby the magnetic force Fm = α · IS .
Add the mathematical description to your report.

Grading milestone #3 (10 points): Transfer function(s) of the pro-

cess with the input variables F (s) (disturbance) and IS (s) and with the
output variable D(s). Turn in your amended report.

4 Design of the Sensor

In this step, you need to design the distance sensor that measures the output
variable d(t) (or, in the Laplace domain, D(s)) and provides a proportional
(or at least monotonically related) voltage Vd (s). Several possible sensor
solutions are available, including Hall sensors, ultrasonic distance sensors,
optical sensors, and inductive sensors. This list is not exhaustive.
When you choose your sensor, consider several parameters, such as lin-
ear response, the dynamic range (i.e., distance between the maximum and
minimum voltage output), noise and external influences (e.g., 60Hz EMI or
120Hz flicker), or the transfer function (e.g., any delay between input and
output).
You need to determine the sensor characteristic curve, that is, the quanti-
tative relationship between d(t) (input) and Vd (t) (output) by measurement.
Add the description of the sensor principle and the measured sensor char-
acteristic to your report. Sensors that increase the output voltage with the
distance and those that decrease the output voltage with the distance are
both acceptable, because a simple sign change in the controller can establish
negative feedback.
To successfully complete this Milestone, your report must contain:

• The sensor transfer curve as specified above

• Evidence that the sensor’s output follows the measured variable in-
stantly or that the time constant can be neglected against the time
constant of the inertia

• Evidence that the sensor’s output data rate is order-of-magnitude

higher than the sampling rate (or at least the time constant of the
inertia) or that the sensor is time-continuous
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 5

• Evidence that the sensor can pick up position changes as small as

0.5mm.

• Optional: Evidence that you can measure the first derivative with an
estimate of the signal-to-noise ratio. This element is optional, but it
puts you in an advantageous situation if you complete it.

Grading milestone #4 (20 points): A working distance sensor and a

measured sensor transfer function with the input variable d and with the
output variable Vd . Turn in your amended report.

5 Design of the Solenoid Driver

The solenoid driver deserves special consideration, because here you split
paths between a pure analog solution and a semi-analog solution with dig-
ital option. A transistor, configured as emitter follower, serves as voltage-
controlled current source. The nonlinear behavior of the B-E junction can
be reduced with the help of an operational amplifier (Figure 2). In both
cases, large heatsinks are required, because the variable coil current is as-
sociated with a variable voltage drop across the transistor. Note that we
can introduce a nonlinearity (voltage drop across D1 is 0.7V) to reduce the
gain for high currents. In its simplest form, the combination of R1 and D1
can somewhat alleviate the nonlinear relationship between magnetic force
and distance. With a nonlinear element in the opamp’s feedback path, a
polynomial characteristic can be even more accurately realized.
The challenge of high heat dissipation does not arise with a transistor
that is used as a switch (Figure 2C). Here, the current is controlled by the
average on-time relative to the switching frequency (pulse-width modula-
tion, PWM). Many microcontrollers have on-chip PWM capability. Analog
ICs exist that provide a pulse-width modulated output signal. Moreover,
complete integrated PWM feedback controllers exist, such as the UC3843
or the LM494.
You need to decide at this point – at least tentatively – which of the
following three options you prefer:

1. Purely analog solution: Transistor Q1 is a linear element. You need

a powerful transistor, such as the TIP140. You can directly use the
output of a controller op-amp to feed this transistor. With the general
idea laid out in Figure 2B, some tweaking is possible.
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 6

A Vcc:1
B Vcc:1
C Vcc:1

L1 L1 D1 L1

C
T2 U1 C Q3
T1
B Q1 B Q2
V(IN) T3
V(IN) E E V(IN) R1

D2

RE
RE

R2

Figure 2: Possible realizations of the coil driver. A: Transistor Q1 is configured

as emitter follower, and the coil current is approximately (VIN − 0.7V)/RE . B:
More accurate version of the driver whereby an operational amplifier eliminates the
nonlinear behavior of the B-E junction. The coil current is approximately VIN /RE .
An optional nonlinear component (R2-D2) reduces the gain for high currents and
thus alleviates the nonlinearity caused by FM ∝ d−2 . C: Switch-mode driver with
a MOSFET. This driver requires a pulse-width modulated signal, and the coil
current is determined by the pulse width and the maximum coil current. Note that
a snubber diode D1 is required to discharge the magnetic energy safely when the
transistor goes into the off-mode.

2. Analog solution with PWM: You can still use a purely op-amp based
solution, but you use the transistor as a switch (Figure 2C). This will
require you to use some form of oscillator and comparator to generate
the PWM signal. It is possible to use discrete op-amps to build this
unit, but integrated chips (e.g., LM494) are an interesting alternative,
because you not only have the PWM generator integrated, but also a
complete error amplifier around which you can build your controller.

3. Digital solution: This solution uses PWM and a microcontroller. You

minimize the circuit efforts, but you need to realize the controller in
software.

Irrespective of whether you use pure analog control or whether you prefer
a digital option with PWM, the overall effort is not fundamentally different.
In addition, you may change from PWM to purely analog (and vice-versa)
at a later point if needed.
In addition to the driver itself, you should attempt to drive the solenoid
with some scaled or amplified version of your sensor output (P-control) and
demonstrate that a deviation from the assumed equilibrium position causes
the magnet current to change in such a fashion that it would correct the po-
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 7

sition mismatch. Specifically, if your sensor indicates a small distance to the

magnet, the magnet current should be reduced, and if your sensor indicates
a larger distance to the magnet, the magnet current should be increased.
Without evidence that you achieved this behavior, only up to 50% of this
Milestone’s score points can be earned.

Grading milestone #5 (20 points): Proof that you have a working

solenoid driver with a control voltage input and a voltage-proportional coil
current. Proof that increased angle mismatch causes faster motor speed in
the correct direction. Submit your amended report.

6 Design of the Controller – Theory

You are now ready to build the controller and close the loop. Most likely,
you’ll have to switch back and forth between open-loop and closed-loop
configurations to test the component’s performance and to optimize the
controller. For this reason, the following outline is merely a suggestion. Ide-
ally, you begin the controller design with a good description of the process,
and this will lead to the next two grading milestones (theory and working
closed-loop model).
Analyze the components you built up to this point (i.e., the levitating
object and the sensor). Where are the poles of the open loop components?
What do you observe with respect to stability? What is the frequency re-
sponse? What is the dynamic impulse or step response? Most importantly,
where do you want to place the closed-loop poles to get the optimum dy-
namic response? Where would you introduce a control voltage that controls
the nominal (setpoint) distance?
Based on these observations, propose a controller transfer function. How
does your pole placement influence the loop gain and thus the suppression
of disturbances? Sketch a circuit that realizes your transfer function (see
Chapter 3.6).
Note: If you use a microcontroller-based system (i.e., a time-discrete
controller), your analysis will have to use the z-domain. Any purely analog
solutions, and this includes integrated PWM controllers, may use Laplace-
domain methods.
Provide an analysis of the behavior of the open-loop system, the con-
troller, and the closed-loop system. Use equations, pole-zero diagrams, sim-
ulations, or any other tool you deem suitable. At this point at the latest,
you need to know your process constants, such as the sensor gain in the
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 8

operating point and your current-dependent magnetic force. Amend your

report with the proposed controller, your controller circuit diagram, and the
analysis of the controller behavior. As the absolute minimum, you need to
address the following points:

• Location of the open-loop poles of the process and the sensor.

• Desired location of the closed-loop poles, justified by the desired dy-

namic response.

• How does the proposed controller transfer function lead to the desired
closed-loop pole location? What coefficients does the controller have,
and how do they influence the pole location?

• Stability analysis: What range of controller coefficients leads to a sta-

ble system? What range of controller coefficients leads to an unstable
system?

• Robustness: Which process constants (e.g., levitated mass) reduce

relative stability or lead to an unstable system? Moreover, how does
the nonlinear behavior of the process and the sensor influence the loop
gain and thus the dynamic response, the absolute or relative stability?

• Steady-state response: At equilibrium, what determines the object-

magnet distance d(t → ∞)?

Most of these questions can be answered with equations. A simulation

could include additional nonlinear factors, such as saturation of the coil
driver, and can even consider the nonlinearities. The overarching goal here
is to demonstrate how the theory leads to a rational controller design.

Grading milestone #6 (20 points): Proposed controller and theoret-

ical analysis of the expected closed-loop behavior. Acceptable closed-loop
behavior of the physical system is not necessary for this grading milestone.
Turn in your amended report.

7 Design of the Controller – Practice

This Milestone involves completing your system. Build the controller you
proposed in the previous section. Complete your system by feeding the
sensor signal into the controller and using the controller’s output voltage to
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 9

drive the solenoid. Perform any fine-tuning of the controller that may be
necessary to obtain stable, non-oscillatory behavior.
Note: Individual help will be provided for this step. Try to make some
coefficients of the controller adjustable, for example, the placement of pole(s)
and zero(s), and the controller gain. Use either a sine-wave frequency sweep
(Bode diagram) or a square-wave signal (step response) to verify your con-
troller’s transfer function.
Voltmeters, a frequency generator and – most importantly – an oscillo-
scope are valuable tools for this step.
This step is successful if you can keep the levitated object at a constant
(and nontrivial) distance from the magnet, without any additional support
and for a prolonged period of time (at least 10 seconds). The functionality
of your final system can be demonstrated in the presentations. If you are
applying for one of the quantitative awards, you are responsible for demon-
strating the specified performance feature.
If you can demonstrate limited stability as defined above, you receive
the score of 40 points for this grading milestone. If the control system is not
operating, a partial credit of up to 10 points (for a valiant attempt) and up
to 25 points (for a system that is close to functioning) will be awarded for
this section.

Grading milestone #7 (40 points): The operational feedback control

system, demonstrated in video or presentation. In addition, turn in your
report, now amended by any design changes you have made. The amended
report must now include all drawings, circuit diagrams, code, and perfor-
mance reports (or at least measurements).

8 Presentation, Demonstration, Finalized Report

Due to the large number of teams, presentations should be submitted as
short (5 minute) videos, which should be approximately split into 3 minutes
for the presentation of the design and realization of the controller, followed
by 2 minutes of practical demonstration.
At this time, the report should be completed with any new findings, and
the design and realization updated. Award-winning performance should be
recorded. You may include photographs of your system if you wish. The
report must contain all circuit diagrams with component values and, for
digital systems, the full source code.
Each student will be handed out a score sheet so that the audience can
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 10

award each presentation up to 20 points. A good presentation can earn

points even when the control system is not functional. The audience will
also record any awards (and award votes) on the score sheet.

Grading milestone #8 (20 points): Score awarded by the audience

for the presentations.

Grading milestone #9 (10 points): Turn in your finalized report.

9 Grading and Award Points

A summary of the grade points (maximum achievable score is 170 points) is
below:

• Grading milestone 1 (team nomination): 3 points

• Grading milestone 2 (design and assembly of the process): 27 points

• Grading milestone 3 (transfer function of the process): 10 points

• Grading milestone 4 (design of the sensor): 20 points

• Grading milestone 5 (solenoid driver, rudimentary P-control): 20 points

• Grading milestone 6 (theory of the controller): 20 points

• Grading milestone 7 (practical realization of the control system): 40

points

• Grading milestone 8 (presentation and demonstration): 20 points

• Grading milestone 9 (complete typewritten report): 10 points

Score points for grading milestone #8 will be awarded by the audience,

i.e., the students. Points awarded are the average score from all grade sheets.
ENGR4220: SEMESTER PROJECT 11

On top of the regular score points, each project with a fully functional
control system 1 eligible for the awards listed below. Each award comes with
a bonus score of 10 points or more as specified below. One team can receive
multiple awards.

1. An automatic 5-point award is given to any team that uses LATEX for
their report (Milestone 9)

2. Award for the design with the highest load lifting capacity (the object
will be weighed on a scale. A maximum of one auxiliary magnet is
allowed): 10 points. Competing: All levitator projects.

3. Award for the design with the widest dynamic range (the largest pe-
riodic movement, measured by a ruler and a laser pointer, for a si-
nusoidal or square-wave setpoint input): 15 points. Competing: All
levitator projects.

4. Award for the design with the best disturbance rejection (defined as
the ratio of weights of the heaviest object levitated to the lightest ob-
ject levitated, with unchanged controller settings. No auxiliary mag-
nets are allowed): 15 points. Competing: All levitator projects.

5. Award for the design with the highest compatibility to any of the
other levitated objects (objects from other groups will be used with
the device under examination. Levitated objects may not be modified,
but controller settings may be changed. Tied projects share award
points): 10 points. Competing: All levitator projects.

6. Award for the best feature above and beyond this assignment – any
demonstrated, useful and justified feature that is not part of the project
assignment qualifies. Voted by the audience. Note: This award refers
to the built system, not to the presentation. Each student has one
vote. You cannot vote for your own team. The majority of votes de-
termines the team that gets this award: 10 points. Competing: All
projects.

7. Award for the most artistic design (voted by the audience. Each stu-
dent has one vote. You cannot vote for your own team. The majority
of votes determines the team that gets this award): 10 points. Com-
peting: All projects.

1
Stability requirement is met when the object remains levitated for 10 seconds or more