Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

Particle swarm optimization based feedforward controller for a XY PZT

positioning stage
Chih-Jer Lin , Po-Ting Lin
Graduate Institute of Automation Technology, National Taipei University of Technology, 1, Sec. 3, Chung-Hsiao E. Road, Taipei 10608, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 April 2011
Accepted 3 February 2012
Available online 8 March 2012
Keywords:
Piezoelectric actuator
Flexure-based mechanism
Real-coded genetic algorithm
Clonal selection algorithm
Particle swarm optimization
System identication

a b s t r a c t
Compensations for cross-axis coupling effect and hysteretic nonlinearity of a novel XY piezo-actuated
positioning stage are presented in this study. The piezo-actuated stage utilizes a monolithic exure-based
mechanism (FBM) to achieve translations in X- and Y-axes instead of using stacked mechanisms. A hysteresis model with crossover term is proposed to alleviate the cross coupling effect between X- and Ystages during precision positioning tasks. System identications using real-coded genetic algorithm
(RGA) and clonal selection algorithm (CSA) are compared with particle swarm optimization (PSO). The
results show that PSO provides better performance than the others. Therefore, a feedforward controller
with cross-axis coupling compensation is studied and the used for the piezo-actuated FBM to enhance
the precision of the coarse positioning stage. The experimental results conrm that the proposed controller can achieve precision tracking tasks with submicron precision.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The demand for ultra-precision positioning systems has increased in the high-precision, high-speed and long-stoke machining industries, especially in semiconductor and ultra-precision
machining during recent years. A ball-screw based mechanism is
the most popular in industrial applications, because it has a wide
diversity of application for different precision and load requirements. However, achieving sub-micrometer accuracy over a longstroke is difcult for ball-screw based mechanisms, because backlash and friction between the nut and the ball-screw. To solve the
above problem, combining a coarse positioning stage with a micropositioning mechanism is a practical method, where the coarse
stage with a ball-screw covers long range traveling with an
accuracy of a few micrometers and the micro-positioning mechanism takes care of small residual range of sub-micrometer accuracy. Sakuta et al. developed a dual servo mechanism where the
PA was mounted on the friction drive slide to achieve an accuracy
positioning task by using a kind of inchworm movement [1].
Okazaki et al. developed a dual-servo mechanical stage by using
a ne and coarse servo positioning system, where a laser interferometer and gap gage were applied to measure the displacement of
the stage [2]. The servo system was controlled with task sharing in
the frequency and displacement range. Lee and Kim developed a
dual servo stage, where a 3-DOF linear motor and 3-DOF PZT actuated stage were used to drive a motion stage by a PID scheme [3].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2771 2171; fax: +886 2 2711 1401.
E-mail addresses: cjlin@ntut.edu.tw (C.-J. Lin), t7618006@ntut.edu.tw (P.-T. Lin).
0957-4158/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2012.02.001

Chen and Dwang developed a ballscrew drive mechanism

equipped with a piezoelectric-actuated nut for active ballscrew
preload and ne motion control, where a strain gage was used as
the positioning sensor of the PA to achieve high precision prole
contouring in low speed motion [4]. Pahk et al. developed a dual
servo technique to combine a coarse stage with a micro stage for
a positioning system having a long stroke with ultra-precision [5].
A exure is a frictionless device based on the elastic deformation
of a solid material. Since it requires no lubricants or consumables, it
is suitable for vacuum operation. Flexure-based mechanisms
(FBMs) are piezoelectric actuator applications with functions controlled by static properties. For many years, researchers have used
elastic mechanisms for micro-positioning and micromanipulation
in the scanning tubes and specimen stages of scanning electron
microscopes (SEMs), for positioning the probe in atomic force
microscopes (AFMs) [6], for various operations in cell microsurgery,
and for precision measurement and alignment of wafers in deep
ultraviolet lithography and scanning probe microscopy (SPM) [7].
Flexure-based mechanisms (FBMs) are usually combined with piezoelectric actuators (PA) to perform micro-positioning and
micromanipulations. PAFBM (piezo-actuated FBM) can be applied
to many technical elds, many displacement-amplifying mechanisms have been proposed to support multi-axis precision positioning for sub-micron wafer alignment or nanopositioning [8]. Ryu
et al. [9] optimized the design of a hinge-based frame-leveraged
mechanical amplier for performing XY positioning during wafer
alignment. Chang et al. [10] developed a novel three degree-of-freedom micropositioner for deep ultraviolet lithography applications.
A exure-guided piezo-actuated scanning stage with 50 lm range

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

and sub-nanometer resolution has also been investigated [11].

Experiments demonstrate that the micropositioner is capable of a
10 nm resolution over the travel range of 17.8 lm in the X- and Yaxes and a 0.15 lrad resolution over the range of 585 rad in the
Hz axis [12,13]. Lee and Kim introduced the hinged frame leverage
to overcome the limitation on the stroke of the leveled hinged frame
[14].
Both direct drive serial-kinematic [15] and parallel-kinematic
[16] positioning stages using FBM have been developed for highspeed purposes. Parametric analyses of harmonic and forced vibrations were conducted to solve the derived dynamic models for the
suboptimum geometry of the micropositioner. Many commercial
micro- or nano-positioning products have been manufactured such
as PI and Piezomechanik companies. Positioning measurement for
the commercial products generally uses analog sensors, such as
strain-gage sensors (SGS) or capacitive sensors. However, the analog sensors are sensitive to external noise, which may degrade the
positioning performance of the PAFBM. The optical encoders, such
as Mercury II 6000, have programmable resolutions range from
5 lm to 1.2 nm and the encoder output is digital. Their high
short-range accuracy, up to 20 nm, provides smooth velocity control. The small size, high performance, robustness, versatility and
ease of use make the optical encoders ideal for small stages, piezo
motor systems, actuators, voice coil motors, micromachining/
nanomanufacturing, and many other applications. In this study,
the linear encoder feedback is used for positioning feedback to enhance the precision of coarse positioning stages.
PA has many advantages such as high stiffness, fast frequency
response, high positioning precision, high electrical mechanical
coupling efciency, and small size, but its main disadvantageous
characteristic is nonlinear hysteresis. Nonlinear hysteresis effects
can be corrected by incorporating charge current control [1719]
or model-based control. However, the charge current control may
not only cause drift and saturation problems, it can also substantially reduce operating range. Another solution is to model the converse piezo effect so that feed-forward compensation can be used
correct hysteresis nonlinearity based on the inverse-hysteresis
model. Mathematical models of hysteresis behavior proposed in
the literature include the Preisach model [20], the generalized
Maxwell-slip hysteretic model [21], PrantlIshlinskii model [22],
Duhem model [23], BoucWen model [2426], Dahl model [27],
ChuaStromsmoe model [28] and JilesAtherton model [29]. The
Preisach model is among the most popular hysteresis models because it captures a large class of hysteresis maps with complex
reversal behavior by using an integral model with an innite number of hysteretic operators. However, the Preisach model requires
substantial computing resources to perform the simulations
needed to establish the grids of the plane. Two other integral hysteresis models, the generalized Maxwell-slip model and the
PrandlIshilinskii model, use different kernel functions. In contrast
with the integral models discussed above, a mass-spring has been
suggested for use in approximating a hysteron model [20]. An
alternative model in the class of hysteresis models studied in
[23] is the Duhem model. Although the Duhem model was originally developed to describe magnetic hysteresis, it has proven suitable for describing piezo-electric hysteresis [28]. Variations of the
Duhem model proposed in various contexts include the Dahl friction model and the BoucWen model, which was originally proposed by Bouc in 1967 and later generalized by Wen in 1976 to
describe the typical hysteresis [26]. Although the Dahl model is
widely used in friction modeling, it has limited effectiveness for
piezoelectric hysteresis modeling. The second-order Dahl model
proposed in Ref. reduces the number of parameters required by
the nonlinear hysteretic system to describe the inverse Dahl model
and simplies the calculation of feed-forward compensation.
Another recent advance is the novel control scheme with inverse

615

Dahl model augmented with repetitive proportionalintegral

derivative (PID) proposed by Xu and Li [27].
The feedforward approaches to achieve nanopositioning in
high-speed SPM can be found by inverting the PA dynamics, which
is rst demonstrated in Refs. [30,31]. Calyton et al. have reviewed
feedforward control approaches in nanopositioning for high-speed
SPM [7]. Such feedforward methods include (a) the input-shaping
approach to minimize excitation of PA vibrational modes [32],
(b) the optimization of high-gain feedback control to achieve a
constant speed scan in one direction [33], and (c) the reduction
of the energy of the input signal at high frequencies [34]. It is noted
that feedback control has been essential part of nanopositioning;
for example, conventional proportionalintegralderivative (PID)
feedback controller [35] or feedback with double integral (internal
model principle) [36,37] are well suited for nanopositioning and
have become popular in low-speed SPM applications. Ref. [38] provided a comparative review of different feedback methods in SPM.
To integrate feedforward and feedback in SPM, there are two approaches, which are the closed-loop-inversion approaches [39
41] and the plant-inversion approaches [42]. For the plant-inversion approaches, Zhang et al. [26] used the genetic algorithm
(GA) for setting hysteresis parameters in the BoucWen model
and performed numerical simulations to conrm the feasibility of
the identication method. However, their experimental data are
difcult to verify because the selected tness function includes a
term for differentiating acceleration. The solution proposed by Ha
et al. [43] is identify the hysteresis model parameters and the PA
simultaneously according to three tness functions; however,
feed-forward control was not proposed and discussed. Jang et al.
[44] discussed a piezoelectric actuator-driven system with asymmetric hysteresis and established a feed-forward controller based
on the proposed asymmetric hysteresis model. Lin et al. [45] used
evolutionary algorithms to optimize parameters of the BoucWen
model of PEA hysteresis and proposed the real-time architecture.
In Ref. [45], XY stage consists of two stacked positioning stages
(PM) which are isolated in different planes. The disadvantages of
using the stacked XY PMs are larger coplanar errors for biaxial positioning and its mechanisms size is larger than the monolithic
mechanism. In this study, a compact design of micropositioner
based on the monolithic mechanism is proposed.
The article begins with a brief review of PAs system modeling
to clarify the positioning issues in Section 2. Moreover, the crosscoupling effects between the X- and Y-stages are also discussed
in this section. Section 3 discusses how to identify the system
parameters of the micro-meter XY PAFBM. To obtain the optimal
parameters for system identication, the real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA), clonal selection algorithm (CSA) and particle swarm
optimization (PSO) are studied. Then, the cross-coupling effect of
is included in the proposed model. Section 4 reviews feed-forward
control methods for PAFBM along with the current research and
real-time implementation issues. To verify its feasibility and effectiveness, the PAFBM is used to compensate the positioning errors
of the coarse stage due to backlash or friction in this study. The
proposed controller is implemented in real-time via three case
studies. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. System description and modeling

Lin et al. proposed a stacked piezo-actuated XY positioning
stage to achieve precision positioning task [46]. To estimate the
hysteresis exactly, they used the evolutionary algorithms to identify the optimal parameters of the BoucWen model for the hysteresis of PA and proposed the real-time architecture. [45] However,
the XY stage consists of two positioning stages (PM) and they are
isolated in different planes. For the positioning XY stage used in

616

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

[45,46], the advantage is that no cross-coupling effects appear between the X- and Y-stages because the two PAs are located in the
different PMs. The disadvantages of using the stacked XY PMs are
larger coplanar errors for biaxial positioning and its mechanisms
size is larger than the monolithic mechanism.
Fig. 1a and b shows that the mechanical architecture of the
piezo-actuated exure-based mechanism (PAFBM) is equipped
with an optical 0.1 lm resolution encoder (Mercury 2000, made
by MicroE systems, USA) on each moving stage to provide position
feedback. Fig. 1a and b shows top and bottom views of the PAFBM.
The presented PAFBM is actuated by a PA for each axis using an
optical encoder with linear glass scales for positioning feedback.
The monolithic PAFBM is fabricated by a wire electric discharge
machine (WEDM) from a piece of A7075 material. Fig. 1 shows that
the monolithic PAFBM enables independent motion of the translation platform in the X and Y directions. The X- or Y-moving stage is
moved as an electrical voltage applied to the PA, respectively. Each
PA is a 20 lm-stoke PZTs (model PSt 150/5x5/20, manufactured by
Piezomechanik GmbH, Germany), which is actuated by a PZT driver
(voltage 20 to +150 V; model CA45, manufactured by CEDRAT,
France). Tables 1 and 2 describe the specications for the PA and
the PZT driver, respectively. The feedback signal of the optical encoder is 0.1 lm/count and is decoded by the DSP controller (model:
DS1104 PPC control board, made by dSPACE, Germany) to enable
data acquisition and real-time control. The dSPACE DS1104 has a
MPC8240 processor with PowerPC 603e core and a 250 MHz CPU
clock. The dSPACE DS1104 board is equipped with 32 MB application memory for storing the real-time programs to be executed.

Table 1
The specication of the PEA.
Type number

PSt 150/5x5/20

Ceramic cross section

Length
Max. stroke (no load) (+)Umax = 150 V
Capacitance
Resonance frequency
Stiffness
Blocking force
Max. load force

5 mm  5 mm
18 mm
20 lm
1800 nF
50 kHz
60 N/lm
1600 N
2000 N

Table 2
The searching range for the parameters of the standalone system.
Parameters

Range

m1 (kg)
m2 (kg)
b1, b2 (N s/m)
k1, k2 (N/m)
d1, d2 (m/V)
a1, a2
b1, b2
c1, c2

0.150.17
0.060.07
010
78  107
05  107
01
01
01

K12,b12

K11,b11

K22,
K22,b22

K21,b21
1,b21

2.1. Modeling of the standalone PZT stage system

Kp1,bp1

To obtain the standalone model, suppose the X-stage and Ystage are not actuated simultaneously. Therefore, the cross-coupling effect between the X- and Y-axis can be neglected. To simplify
the complexity of the mechanism, the structure was modeled in
terms of the lump mass discrete system, as described in Fig. 2.
The modeling of each PA actuated FBM stage can be derived as
follows.
For X-stage, the dynamic model can be formulated as follows.

m1 x1 bFBM1 bPzt1 x_ 1 kFBM1 kPzt1 x1 fPzt1 ;

m2

K23,b23
23,b23

K24,b24
K24,
Kp2,bp2

K13,b13

K14,b14

m1

Fig. 2. The modeling of a nested XY PZT FBM in terms of the lump mass discrete
system.

where x1 is the displacement of the X-stage; x_ 1 ; x1 are the rst and

second order derivatives of x1 with respect to time t, respectively;
the parameter m1 is the equivalent mass of X-stage; the parameters
bFBM1 and kFBM1 are the equivalent viscous damping coefcient and
stiffness factor of the X-axis FBM, respectively; the parameters
bPzt1, kPzt1 are the equivalent viscous damping and stiffness coefcients of the PA, respectively; fPzt1 represents the force generated
by the X-axis PA. Therefore, FBM can be considered as a
mass-spring-damper mechanism, which is described using a linear
time-invariant second order differential equation. PA can be

10mm

regarded as a nonlinear force generator, which produces force due

to the applied voltage. The modeling of the FBM can be simplied
as the following equations and the relation can be described as
follows.

m1 x1 b1 x_ 1 k1 x1 k1  d1  U 1  h1 ;

where the parameter b1 = bFBM1 + bPzt1 and k1 = kFBM1 + kPzt1 are the
equivalent viscous damping coefcient and stiffness factor of the
whole system, respectively; d1 = d33  nc, d33 is the piezoelectric con-

10mm

Fig. 1. (a) The top-view of the PAFBM stage and (b) the bottom-view of the PAFBM stage.

617

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

Fig. 3. (a) The deformation of the PAFBM and (b) the displacement vector plot with 30 magnication due to the cross-coupling effect.

stant of each ceramic layer (lm/V), nc is the number of ceramic layers, U1 is the applied voltage. Due to the hysteresis phenomena of
PA, the relation between the actuated force and the applied voltage
is nonlinear and the nonlinear hysteretic term is denoted as h1.
fPzt1 = k1(d1  U1  h1) is the actual force with respect to the applied
voltage. If the dynamic of hysteresis can be estimated by a nonlinear hysteresis observer, then this system can be linearized via a
feedforward controller as follows.

U FF1 t

^1 t
xd t h
;
d1

^1 t is the nominal hysteresis

where xd(t) is reference input and h
estimated by the observer. Substituting UFF1(t) instead of U1(t) in
Eq. (2), the linearized system can be described as follows.

m1 x1 b1 x_ 1 k1 x1 k1  xd D;

^ 1  h1 represents the observer error. The hysteresis is

where D1 h
not a differentiable and one-to-one nonlinear mapping but nonlinearity with local memory, so that it causes positioning errors which
critically limit the operating speed and precision of PEAs. The hysteresis observer dynamics is usually described by BoucWen model
to describe the hysteretic nonlinearity of the PEA as follows.

^_ 1 a1 d1 U_ 1  b jU_ 1 jh
^1  c U_ 1 jh
^1 j;
h
1
1

^_ 1 are the derivatives of h

^1 with respect to time t, a , b , c are the
h
1
1
1
parameters to determine the hysteretic loops magnitude and
shape. To obtain the optimal parameters of the system, the realcoded genetic algorithm (RGA), clonal selection algorithm (CSA)
and particle swarm optimization (PSO) are studied and discussed
in Section 3.
2.2. B. Modeling of the XY PZT stage with cross-axis coupling
There are two well-known congurations employed in FBM
stages serial kinematics and parallel kinematics. Each conguration has its own set of pros and cons. In serial design, multiple DOF
are achieved by stacking single DOF systems, one on other. Serial
kinematic mechanisms are relatively simple to design, because
they have substantially decoupled degrees of freedom. The technical literature presents several such designs, where this stacking is
done either out-of-plane [4749] or in-plane [5052]. Due to fabricability reasons, moving actuators and connections for serial kinematic mechanisms are undesirable for FBM used in MEMS
applications. Parallel kinematic designs [911,43,5360] are free
of these problems due to ground mounted actuators, and are also

usually more compact, but on the other hand, provide smaller

ranges of motion and exhibit signicant cross-axis coupling [61].
This affects the static as well as dynamic performance of the mechanism. To illustrate the cross-axis coupling effect of the presented
FBM, Fig. 3a and b shows the CAE results of the presented FBM as
the biaxial PAs are actuated simultaneously (U1 = U1 = 100 (V)) via
Solidworks Simulation. Fig. 3a shows the deformation of the presented FBM and the interaction between X-axis and Y-axis stages.
Fig. 3b shows the displacement vector plot with 30 magnication; the middle stage is rotated and shifted due to the cross-coupling effect. Consider the cross-coupling effect between the X- and
Y-axes, the general dynamic equations of XY PZT stage are described as [43].

  
  
x1
m11
0
x_ 1
b
k
0
11
11
0
m22 x2
0 b22 x_ 2
0



k11 k12 d1  U 1  h1

;
k21 k22 d2  U 2  h2

0
k22



x1
x2

where x1 and x2 are the displacements of the X and Y-stages,

respectively; m is the mass, b is the viscous damping, k is the spring
stiffness, d is the piezoelectric coefcient, U is the input voltage and
h is the hysteresis state. The subscripts 1 and 2 represent the
parameters in the X- an Y-directions. For example, k11 is the spring
stiffness for X displacement with respect to X-axis force
fPzt1 = k1(d1  U1  h1); k21 is the cross-coupling term of the spring
stiffness for Y displacement with respect to X-axis force fPzt1. Because the parameters m11, m22, b11, b22, k11, k21, k21, k22 and
d1, a1, b1, c1, d2, a2, b2, c2 cannot be measured directly by experimental data, an optimal searching problem with inequality constraints based on RGA, CSA and PSO are discussed in the next
section to obtain the optimal set of the parameters. The problem
is too difcult to obtain the whole parameters of the XY PZT stage
with considering the cross coupling effect. Firstly, the optimization
problem for identifying the parameters of X- or Y-stage at the standalone actuating mode is discussed. In Section 3, system identication for the standalone mode is discussed in Case 1 and the crosscoupling effect is discussed in Case 2.
3. Main results
3.1. Identication of FBM and PA via constrained optimization
The dynamic model for the X stage shown in Fig. 2 can be formulated as Eq. (1). To identify the parameters m, b, k of the positioning
mechanism, the density of the material A7075 should be obtained

618

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

Fig. 4. The equivalent cantilever beam of the plane spring.

of BoucWen model. Although the Preisach model was usually

used to describe the hysteresis exactly; however, the relation
was established according to the experimental data, so that it
may cause errors when the reference input is unmatched. To solve
this problem, the dynamic of hysteresis should be established by
the nonlinear differential equations.
To understand the cross-coupling effects between the x- and yaxes, the triangle waveforms are applied with the amplitude of 130
and 90 (V) for the X-axiss and Y-axiss PAs at the same time. Fig. 4
describes the hysteretic loop of the X-axis and Y-axis stages via the
measurement data of the optical encoders for the standalone and
synchronous modes. As the PAs are actuated synchronously, the
cross-coupling effects make the response different from the one
in the standalone mode. On one hand, Fig. 5a shows that the displacement of X-axis stage is pulled down due to the interaction
of the Y-axis PA. On the other hand, Fig. 5b shows that the displacement of Y-axis stage is pulled up due to the X-axis PA actuation.
With considering the cross-coupling effects, the XY PZT stage can
be formulated using Eq. (6).
The BoucWen model was applied to describe the nonlinearity
of the PEA; the modeling of the piezo-actuated stage was described
in Eq. (5). To identify the system parameters mi, bi, ki, di, ai, bi, ci,
where i = 1, 2 for X- and Y-stages, the RGA, CSA and PSO are studied
to obtain the optimal set of the parameters. The search optimization problem is discussed by the X-stage at rst, because the Y
moving stage mechanism is similar to the X stage. Without loss
of generality, consider the optimal problem for X-stage is formulated as follows with LMI constraints.

by the experimental data at rst. The approximated density of

A7075 can be obtained as about 2837 kg/cm3 by means of measuring the monolithic stage mass of m = 0.23 (kg) by the precision scale
and its volume (8.1047  105), which is computed by Solidworks
via the solid model. Then, the actual mass of the X-stage can be estimated about m1 = 0.156 (kg), and the actual mass of the Y-stage can
be estimated about m2 = 0.067 (kg). Besides of the FBMs mass, the
stiffness factor of the X-axis stage can be estimated as follows. Assume the stiffness factors of the plane springs are the same and
K11 = K12 = K13 = K14; as a result kFMB1 = 4  K11 in Eq. (1). From the
formulation of the equivalent cantilever beam in Fig. 4, the stiffness
factor of K11 can be obtained by the following equation.

K 11

Ebd
L

where E is the Youngs modulus of A7075 (E = 7.2  1010 N/m2),

b = 0.01 (m) is the width of the plane spring, d = 0.001 (m) is the
high of the plane spring, L = 0.006 (m) is the length of the plane
10
0:010:0013
spring. Therefore, kFBM1 4  7:210 0:006
1:333  107 N=m.
3
In addition, the stiffness factor of the PEA can be obtained from
the datasheet of PSt 150/5x5/20 in Table 1 and kPzt1 = 6  107 (N/
m).
The
stiffness factor
of
X-axis stage
is
about
k1 = kPzt1 + kFBM1 = 7.333  107 (N/m). As a result, the search range
of stiffness factor for this case is designed as 7  107 6 k1 6 8  107.
For a PEA, the relation between actuating force and applied
voltage is not linear but a nonlinear hysteresis model. To establish
the hysteresis model, measuring the relation between the displacements and applied voltages is necessary to obtain the parameters

X axis

10

8
7
6
5
4
3
2

20

40

60

80

Voltage (V)

100

6
5
4
3
Standalone
Cross-coupling

Cross-coupling

Standalone

Y axis

10

Displacement ( m)

Displacement ( m)

11

120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Voltage (V)

Fig. 5. (a) The hysteresis loop of the X-axis PZT stages in the standalone mode and the experiential result with cross-coupling effects and (b) the hysteresis loop of the Y-axis
PZT stages in the standalone mode and the experiential result with cross-coupling effects.

619

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

s
XN xh i  xi2
Min
Jx
;
i1
m1 ;b1 ;k1 ;d1 ;a1 ;b1 ;c1
N

Subject to
Equality constraints:

m1 x b1 x_ k1 x k1 d1  U 1  h1 ;

9a

h_ 1 a1 d1 U_ 1  b1 jU_ 1 jh1  c1 U_ 1 jh1 j;

9b

Inequality constraints:

0 6 m1 6 m1
0 6 b1 6 b1
k1 6 k1 6 k1
0 6 d1 6 d1

9c

0 6 a1 6 a1
0 6 b1 6 b1
0 6 c1 6 c1 ;
where J(x) is the objective function; the xh(i) represents the experimental data of the hysteric loop via the measurement at the ith
sampling time in Fig. 4a; x(i) are the calculated data via Eqs. (9a)
and (9b) at the ith sampling time; N is the total sampling number
from the experimental results. In this optimal problem, the objective function J(x) represents the root mean squared error (RMSE) between the experimental results and the simulation data. If the value
of J(x) can be much smaller, then the estimated hysteresis model
will be more accurate.
3.2. Identication based on RGA
Genetic algorithms (GAs) are procedures used to obtain solutions for optimal search problems through application of the principles of evolutionary biology. GAs were rst proposed by John
Holland in the 1960s [62] and have become widely used in various
disciplines. GA is a stochastic technique based on the mechanism
of natural selection and natural genetics. A chromosome is a string
of symbols. On one hand, it is usually a binary bit string, but not
necessarily. On the other hand, the GA representing the genes directly as real numbers is called real-code genetic algorithm
(RGA). The chromosomes evolve through successive iterations,
called generations. During each generation, the chromosomes are
evaluated, using some measures of tness. To create the next generation, new chromosomes, called offspring, are formed by either
merging two chromosomes from current generation using crossover operator or modifying a chromosome using a mutation operator. A new generation is formed by selecting, according to the
tness values, some of the parents and offspring and rejecting others so as to keep the population size constant. Fitter chromosomes
have higher probabilities of being selected. After several generations, the algorithm converges to the best chromosome, which
hopefully represents the optimum or suboptimal solution to the
problem. In this study, a real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA) is
adopted to identify system parameters. The feature of real-coded
is easy to formulate the optimization problems without coding
and decoding processes. RGA is able to exploit local continuities
of the function and uses different mutation and crossover techniques to implement real representations. The identication based
on RGA was implemented as follows.
(1) Stochastic uniform parent selection: It lays out a line in
which each parent corresponds to a section of the line of
length proportional to its scaled value. The algorithm moves

along the line in steps of equal size. At each step, the algorithm allocates a parent form the section it lands on. The rst
step is a uniform random number less than the step size.
(2) Reproduction with elitist strategy and crossover fraction:
Reserve two elites that are guaranteed to survive to the next
generation. The crossover method used is a combination of
two vectors v1, v2 as follows.

v 01 g  v 1 1  g  v 2 ;
v 02 1  g  v 1 g  v 2 ;
where g is a uniformly distributed random variable between 0
and 1.
(3) Gaussian mutation: The Gaussian mutation adds a random
number taken from a Gaussian distribution with mean 0 to
each element of an individuals vector to create a new offspring. In the simplest case, the three parameters are
mutated with the same Gaussian distribution as follows.

v new
v i Dv ;
i

10
T

where vi is a vector [mi, bi, ki, di, ai, bi, ci] and Dv is distributed
according to the following probability distribution function (PDF):



1
1 Dv 2
;
pDv p exp 
2 r2
2pr

11

where the standard deviation r of the PDF is determined by the

parameters scale and it controls the average step size of the mutation. The standard deviation of this distribution can be controlled
with two parameters. The shrink parameter controls how standard
deviation shrinks as generations go by and the equation as follows.


xi xi1 1  shrink 


i
;
generations

12

If the shrink parameter is 0, the standard deviation is constant. If

the shrink parameter is 1, the standard deviation shrinks to 0 linearly as the last generation is reached.
(4) Migration with fraction and interval: The interval is to specify the number of generations that take place between
migrations of individuals. When migration occurs, the best
individuals of one subpopulation are copied to another subpopulation to replace the worst individuals in another
subpopulation.
The tness function F(X) for RGA can be dened as the objective
function in Eq. (8). Therefore, the optimization problem can be
transferred as follows.

Min FX;
X2Q

13

where F: Q ? R, F(X) = J(x), X = [mi, bi, ki, di, ai, bi, ci], Q = {X e Rn:
li 6 xi 6 ui, i = 1, . . . , n}, Q is the feasible domain as the box constraints in Eq. (9c), x satises Eqs. (9a) and (9b), and n = 7 in this
study. All chromosomes carry out crossover and mutation to compose a population and they are evaluated according to the tness
function. The individuals with better tness values (smaller RMSE)
will survive and the individuals with bad tness values will be given up. The best chromosome is usually allowed to propagate to
the next generation, such as an approach called an elitist strategy.
The left individuals with better RMSE compose a new population
and return to the second step. RGA searches the best solution over
generations in these steps until the converging index is satised.
3.3. Identication based on PSO
In mid 1990s Eberhart and Kennedy enunciated an alternative
solution to the complex non-linear optimization problem by emulating the collective behavior of bird ocks, particles, the Boids
method of Craig Reynolds and socio-cognition and called their

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

(1) Initialize a population of particles with random positions

and velocities in d dimensions in the problem space.
(2) For each particle, evaluate the desired optimization tness
function in d variables.
(3) For each particle, compare the tness evaluation particle
with the pbest. If the current value is better than pbest, set
the pbest value to equal the current value, and set the pbest
location to equal the current location in d dimensional space.
(4) Compare tness evaluation with the best evaluation
observed previously in the overall population. If the current
value is better than gbest, then reset gbest to the array index
and value of the current particle.
(5) Change the velocity and position of the particle using the following equations:

V id t 1 v id c1  rand  pid t  xid t c2  rand

 g id t  xid t

14

xid t 1 xid t v id t 1:

15

(6) Loop to step II until a criterion is met, usually a sufciently

good tness or maximum number of iterations.
Clamp the velocities of the particles in each dimension to a
maximum velocity Vmax. If the sum of accelerations causes the
velocity in that dimension to exceed parameter Vmax specied by
the user, then the velocity in that dimension is limited to Vmax.
The Vmax is therefore an important parameter because it determines the resolution, or tness, with which regions between the
present and targeted positions are searched. If Vmax is too high, particles might y past good solutions. If Vmax is too small, however,
particles may not sufciently explore beyond local good regions.
The acceleration constants c1 and c2 in Eq. (14) represent the
weighting of the stochastic acceleration terms that pull each particle toward pbest and gbest positions, respectively.
In 2002, Clerc and Kennedy proposed an adaptive PSO model
[64] that uses a new parameter v called the constriction factor.
Constriction coefcient enable rapid convergence of particles over
time. That is, the amplitude of oscillations of a particle decreases as
the particle focuses on the local and neighborhood previous best
points. Although the particle converges to a point over time, the
constriction coefcient also prevents collapse if the right social
conditions are in place. The particle oscillates around the weighted
*
*
mean of p t and g t, and if the previous best position and the

100

CSA
PSO
RGA

RMSE

brainchild the particle swarm optimization (PSO) [63]. PSO is a relatively recent heuristic search method based on the idea of collaborative behavior and swarming in biological populations. It is a
multi-agent parallel search technique. PSO is similar to the GA in
population operations, but PSO has no evolution operators such
as crossover and mutation. In PSO, the potential solutions, or called
particles, y through the problem space by following the current
optimum particles. The detailed information will be given in following sections. Particles are conceptual entities that y through
the multi-dimensional search space. At any particular instant, each
particle has a position and a velocity. The position vector of a particle with respect to the origin of the search space represents a trial
solution of the search problem. First, a population of particles is
*
initialized with random positions marked by vectors x i and ran*
dom velocities v i . The population of such particles is called a
swarm. Each particle has two state variables, its current position
*
*
x i t and its current velocity v i t. Each particle is also equipped
*
with a small memory comprising its previous best position p t,
which is the personal best experience and the best of all particles
so far, and the best value so far in the group among the best posi*
tion g t, which is referred to as the globally best particle in the entire swarm. The global version of PSO is implemented as follows:

10-1

10

10

10

Generation
0

10

CSA
PSO
RGA

RMSE

620

-1

10

10

10

10

Generation
Fig. 6. Comparisons of convergence characteristics in RCGA, PSO and CSA methods
for BoucWen models for (a) the X-axis stage and (b) the Y-axis stage.

neighborhood best position are near each other, the particle performs a local search. The constriction coefcient method therefore
balances the need for local and global search depending on the so*
*
cial conditions in place. Initially, the settings for p t and g t are
*
*
*
p 0 g 0 x 0 for all particles. Once all particles are initialized, an iterative process optimizes the positions and velocities of
all particles according to the following recursive equations:

V id t 1 vv id c1  u1  pid t  xid t c2  u2
 g id t  xid t;
xid t 1 xid t v id t 1;

16
17

where

2
q with / c1 c2 :
j4  /  /2  4/j

18

Since coefcient c1 contributes to the self-exploration of a particle, coefcient c1 is considered the self-condence of the particle.
The contribution of coefcient c2 to motion of the particles depends on the motion of all the particles in the preceding program
iterations, so its denition as swarm condence is apparent.
Coefcients /1 and /2 represent uniformly distributed random
numbers in the interval [1]. The rst iteration of the algorithm is
completed when the velocities and position for the next time step
t + 1 are calculated.

621

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

Table 3
The identied values of BoucWen hysteresis model for the X-axis FBM.
Parameters

RGA
PSO
CSA

0.1612
0.1566
0.0655

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

7.5211E7
7.0028E7
7.0001E7

8.1813E8
8.1947E8
8.1929E8

0.6388
0.5590
0.5628

0.0125
0.0148
0.0156

0.0693
0.0552
0.0552

Table 4
The identied values of BoucWen hysteresis model for the Y-axis FBM.
Parameters

RGA
PSO
CSA

0.0673
0.0631
0.0651

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

7.0723E7
7.6963E7
7.2732E7

1.1065E7
1.1064E7
1.1062E7

0.5231
0.5243
0.5313

0.1108
0.1111
0.1089

0.0000
0.0000
0.0039

Table 5
The RMSE and computing time based on X-axis stage of FBM.
Method

RMSE (lm)

Total time (s)

RGA
PSO
CSA

0.092309
0.091625
0.092331

3969
1993
30384

Table 6
The RMSE and computing time based on Y-axis stage of FBM.
Parameters

RMSE (lm)

Total time (s)

RGA
PSO
CSA

0.147957
0.147950
0.147972

3793
2179
30630

3.4. Identication based on CSA

a point in the search space. A population consists of a nite number

of antibodies. Every antibody is evaluated by the evaluation mechanism to obtain its afnity. Based on this afnity and undergoing
immune operators, a new population is generated iteratively with
each successive population, referred to as a generation. The CSA
has two main computational mechanisms: selection and mutation,
which were proposed by De Castro and Von Zuben [67]. These two
mechanisms were fullled by taking into account the immune
properties: the proliferation and mutation rate are proportional
to the antigenic afnity. The clones with the higher antigen afnity
are generated for each antibody than the others. For hyper-mutation operations, the cloned population is subject to an afnity
mutation process which is inversely proportional to the antigen
afnity. The receptor editing includes two steps. The rst step is
to generate a given number of new antibodies randomly. The second step is to generate antibodies used to refresh the whole population via replacing those antibodies with the lowest antigenic
afnity. The steps of CSA are described as follows.

Immune system includes cells, molecules and organs. It protects

the body against any further invasion from antigens. The learning
mechanism creates the immune systems memory, which causes
rapid response to next similar invasion. Using this mechanism, immune algorithm shows a good performance for an optimization
problem. Clonal selection algorithm (CSA) was inspired from the
articial immune system (AIS), which is used to dene the basic
features of an immune response to an antigenic stimulus. It has
used for many engineering optimization problems [65,66]. In the
CSA, a candidate solution for the specic problem is called an antigen, which is recognized by the antibody. Each antibody represents

X axis

11
10

8
7
6
5
4
3

7
6
5
4
3
2

Experiment

Identified with PSO

20

40

60

80

Voltage (V)

100

Experiment

1
0

Y axis

10

Displacement (m)

Displacement ( m)

(1) Initialization: The rst step of the CSA, which involves preparing an antibody pool of xed size. This pool is separated
into two components: a memory antibody section and a
remaining antibody pool. The memory antibody section
becomes representative of the algorithms solution eventually and remaining antibody pool is used for introducing
additional diversity into the immune system.
(2) Loop: The algorithm executes over iterations to make the
immune system expose to all known antigens. A single
round of exposure or iteration is referred to as a
generation.

120

Identified with PSO

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Voltage (V)

Fig. 7. (a) The hysteresis loops of the X-axis PEA stages obtained by experimental data and the response for the identied BoucWen model using PSO method and (b) the
hysteresis loops of the Y-axis PEA stages obtained by experimental data and the response for the identied BoucWen model using PSO method in the standalone mode.

622

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

(a) Select Antigen: A single antigen is selected at random

without replacement from the pool of antigens.
(b) Exposure: The system is exposed to the selected antigen.
Afnity values are calculated for all antibodies against
the antigen.
(c) Selection: a set of antibodies is selected from the entire
antibody pool that has the highest afnity with the
antigen.
(d) Clone: The set of selected antibodies are cloned in proportion to their afnity.
(e) Mutation: The cloned antibodies are subjected to an
afnity maturation process to obtain better matched
antigen. The maturation rate is inversely proportional
to their parents afnity. The greater afnity obtains
the lower mutation rate.
(f) Candidature: The antibody or antibodies with the highest afnity in the clone are selected as candidate memory antibodies for the memory pool. If the afnity of
candidate memory cell is higher than that of the highest
in the memory pool, then it replaces the antigen.
(g) Replacement: Finally, the individuals in the remaining
antigen pool with the lowest afnity are replaced with
new random antibodies.
(3) Finish: After the completion of the training regime, the
memory m component of the antigen pool is the optimal
solution. Depending on the problem domain, the solution
may be a single best individual antigen or a group of antigens in the pool.
3.4.1. Case I: System identication based on optimization methods in
the standalone actuating mode
Before discussing the XY PAFBMs modeling with the cross-axis
coupling, the optimization problem for identifying the system
parameters at standalone actuating mode is discussed. In this case,
the PA is actuated individually for each axis and the cross-coupling
effect can be neglected. The optimization problem can be simplied as a search for seven system parameters (mi, ci, ki, di, ai, bi,
ci) whose search ranges are shown in Table 2. To compare these
three identication methods RGA, PSO and CSA, the population size
is set as 70 and the number of generation is 250. The other parameters of these methods are set as follows. In RGA, the crossover rate
is set as 0.8. In PSO, the acceleration constants are c1 = 2.8 and
c2 = 1.3. In CSA, the resolution is set as 16-bit, the mutation rate
is 0.05.
Fig. 6a and b shows the results of root-mean-square error
(RMSE) with respect to generation number for each method. Here
the CSA algorithm is faster than the other two methods before the
100th generation, but it is time consuming. Tables 3 shows that the
spent time for 200 generations and CSA is much larger than RGA
and PSO over the same generations; PSO is more computationally
efcient than RGA. To investigate this claim, Table 4 for Y-axis
indemnication also shows the equal effectiveness but superior
efciency for PSO over the RGA. This comparison result between
PSO and RGA is in accordance with the past literatures [68,69].
Fig. 6a and b shows that RGA has superior convergence than RGA
before the 80th generation. The results of identied value for
BoucWen model by RGA, PSO and CSA are shown in Table 5 and
6. Overall, the PSO method is superior to the other two methods
in computing time and convergence to obtain the optimal solution.
Fig. 7a and b compares the simulation results based on the standalone model with the experimental results.
3.4.2. Case II: System identication based on PSO with cross-coupling
effects
After studying the identication based on three methods (RGA,
PSO, CSA) for X- and Y-axes individually, the cross-coupling inter-

Table 7
The searching range for the parameters of the system for the XY PZT stage.
Parameters

Searching range

The optimal value obtained by PSO

a1
a2

01
01
01
01
01
01
Obtained in
Obtained in
Obtained in
Obtained in
Obtained in
Obtained in
Obtained in
9000000
09E6
Obtained in

0.519979
0.863758
0.012794
0.295187
0.052803
0
8.19E08
1.11E07
0.1566
0.0631
0.000000
0.000000
7.00E + 07
3.23E + 06
4.15E + 06
7.70E + 07

b1
b2

c1
c2
d1
d2
m11
m22
b11
b22
k11
k12
k21
k22

Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Case 1

action between X- and Y-axes is discussed as the two PAs are actuated synchronously. From Fig. 5, it is obvious that there exists
cross-coupling effects for the XY PZT system when the triangle
waveforms with the amplitude of 130 and 90 (V) are synchronously applied to the X-axiss and Y-axiss PAs. Therefore, Eq. (6)
should be used to describe the dynamics of XY PZT stage instead
of Eq. (2). For the individual X-axis or Y-axis stage, the mass,
damping coefcients, spring constants and piezoelectric constants
(m11, m22, b11, b22, k11, k22, d1, d2) can be obtained in Case I and the
cross-coupling effects do not inuence them. Therefore, the optimization problem can be simplied to search eight parameters
for the cross-coupling XY PZT system. On one hand, the force generated by the X-axis or Y-axis PAs affect both two FBM stage
through the stiffness k12 and k21. On the other hand, the Bouc
Wen model with two outputs with two inputs are determined by
six parameters a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, and c2. Therefore, the optimization
for XY PZT system is formulated as follows with LMI constraints as
follows.

s
RMSEx 2 RMSEy 2
Min
Jx
:
k12 ;k21 ;a1 ;b1 ;c1 ;a2 ;b2 ;c2
2

19

Subject to
Equality constraints:

  
  
x1
m11
0
x_ 1
b11 0
k

11
0
m22 x2
0 b22 x_ 2
0



k
k12 d1  U 1  h1
;
11
k21 k22 d2  U 2  h2

"

h_ 1
h_ 2

"

0
k22



x1
x2

20a

a1 d1 U_ 1  b1 jU_ 1 jh1  c1 U_ 1 jh1 j

:

a2 d2 U_ 2  b2 jU_ 2 jh2  c2 U_ 2 jh2 j

20b

Inequality constraints:

0 6 k12 6 k12
0 6 k21 6 k21
0 6 a1 6 a1
0 6 b1 6 b1
0 6 c1 6 c1

20c

0 6 a2 6 a2
0 6 b2 6 b2
0 6 c2 6 c2 ;
where J(x) is the objective function; the RMSEx and RMSEy represent
the root mean square errors with respect to experimental data of

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

623

Fig. 8. The block-diagram of the XY PZT FBM system with considering the cross-coupling effect.

the hysteric loop via the measurement for the X- and Y-axes, respectively. Table 7 describes the searching range for the inequality constraints and the optimal system parameters obtained by the PSO
method. Fig. 8 shows the block-diagram of the proposed model with
cross-axis coupling term. Fig. 9a and b compares the simulation results using the standalone model with the experimental results
with cross-coupling effects; there exist large modeling errors for
the standalone model due to cross-coupling effects between the
X- and Y-axes PAs.
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed cross-coupling model, the optimal parameters obtained by PSO are used to Eq. (6).
Fig. 9a and b shows that the proposed cross-coupling model has
less tracking errors than the standalone model with respect to
the experimental results. Table 8 shows that the modeling errors
for the standalone and the cross-coupling models; the modeling
error for the proposed cross-coupling model has less errors than
the standalone model for each axis. Therefore, the simulation results verify the effectiveness of the proposed model.

4. Real-time implementation for feedforward control

The internal model control (IMC) philosophy relies on internal
model principle (IMP), which states that control can be achieved
only if the control system encapsulates, either implicitly or
explicitly, some representation of the process to be controlled
[36,37]. From the above study, the optimal parameters of the
BoucWen model have been identied, so that the hysteresis
term of the PA and the parameters of the FBM can be estimated.
To compensate the nonlinearity due to the hysteresis of the PA, it
is necessary to design a feedforward controller to compensate this
nonlinear term. Without loss of generality, the X-axis stage is discussed at rst. If the reference input is xd(t), then the applied voltage can be obtained as follows according to the piezoelectric
constant d1.

U 1 t

xd t
:
d1

21

624

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

X axis

10

8
7
6
5
4
3
1
0

7
6
5
4
3

Experiment
Cross-coupling model
Standalone model

20

40

60

Y axis

10

Displacement ( m)

Displacement (m)

11

80

100

Experiment

Cross-coupling model
Standalone model

120

10

20

30 40

50

60 70

80

90

Voltage (V)

Voltage (V)

Fig. 9. The comparison between the experimental result, the response of the standalone model, and the cross-coupling model for (a) the X-axis PZT FBM and (b) the Y-axis
PZT FBM.

Table 8
The root-mean-square modeling errors for the standalone and the cross-coupling
models.
RMSE (lm)

X axis

Y axis

Standalone model
Cross-coupling model

0.154339
0.087902

0.379272
0.118803

where e1(t) = xd(t)  x(t) represents the positioning error of the system with the feedforward compensating of the inverse hysteresis.
Therefore, Fig. 9 describes the block diagram of the PA-actuated
FBM system. Substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (2) gives

b1
k1
k1
x
 d1 U 1  h1
x_ 
m1
m1
m1
Z
b1
k1
k1 d1
k1

x
K P1 e1 t K I1 e1 tdt
xd
x_ 
m1
m1
m1
m1
k1 ^

 h1  h1 :
m1

x 

When the system has no control and the hysteresis is taken into
consideration, the actual displacement of the PEA, xPEA(t), can be
described as follows due to the hysteresis effect.

xPEA t d1  U 1 t  h1 t;

22

where d is the piezoelectric constant, which describes the ratio of

the ideal displacement with respect to the applied voltage. However, the desired displacement is xd(t) = d  u(t), so the feedforward
control is needed to compensate the hysteresis nonlinearity. If the
hysteresis term h(t) can be estimated by the above BoucWen model, then the feedforward compensating based on the BoucWen
model can be designed as follows.

U FF1 t

^ t
xd t h
1
;
d1

23

^
where ht
is the nominal hysteresis obtained by the BoucWen
model, whose parameters are identied by the PSO in Table 7.
The ideal control performance is achieved without feedback based
on IMC. However, there still exists modeling errors due to the
non-symmetry of hysteresis or uncertainties and external disturbances, so that the feedback controller is necessary to enhance
the robustness of the system and improve the tracking performance; the feedforward controller is combined to the PI feedback
controller as follows,

U 1 t U FF1 t U FB1 t;

24

where

U FB1 t K P1 e1 t K I1

Feedforward
control

x d ( t ) + e (t )
1

~ 1 t h1 t
Dene the modeling uncertainty of the hysteresis, h
R
^
h1 t, and new state variables z1(t) = e1(t)dt, z2(t) = e1(t), and
z3 t e_ 1 t. Then, the closed-loop error dynamics of the X-axis
stage can be described as follows.

3
2 3
z1
z_ 1


b1
k1 ~
6_ 7
6 7
h1 ;
x_ d
4 z2 5 A  4 z2 5 B  xd
m1
m1
z3
z_ 3
2
6
A4

2 3
0
6 7
1 7
5 and B 4 0 5:
 mb11
1
0

 k1 dm1 1K I1

 k1 km1 d11 K P1

Dene the new state X 1 z1

mulated as follows.

z2

X_ A  X n;

K P1 + K I 1

1
s

U 1 (t )

z3 T and Eq. (1) can be refor-

27

~ 1 is an imprecisely known function

where n B  xd x_ d h
which represents the modeling uncertainty in the system. To guarantee the stability of the closed-loop system, dene a Lyapunov
function as follows.
b1
m1

k1
m1

28

h1 ( t )
+

26

where

V X T PX;

e1 tdt;

25

d1 U 1 (t ) h1 (t )

f Pzt1 (t )

1
ms 2 + bs + k

Fig. 10. The block diagram of the proposed control for the PZT XY FBM system.

x (t )

625

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

Fig. 11. The embedded Simulink code using the dSPACE controller for the real-time control architecture.

X Axis

Open loop
Feedforward
Feedforward+feedback

Displacement (mm)

Error (m)

0.5

-0.5
-1
-1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time (second)
Fig. 12. The tracking errors of the three controllers for X-axis stage.

Fig. 14. The response of the micro-stepping stage with respect to the sinusoidal
reference with 1 mm amplitude.

Open loop
Feedforward
Feedforward + feedback

0.6
0.4

Error (m)

Time (sec)

Y Axis

0.8

0.2

where P e R33 is a symmetric positive-denite matrix. By construction the Lyapunov function is nonzero except at the origin. Differentiating Eq. (28) with respect to time gives:

0
-0.2
-0.4

V_ X_ T PX X T PX_ 2X T PX_ 2X T PAX n:

-0.6
-0.8
-1

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time (second)
Fig. 13. The tracking errors of the three controllers for Y-axis stage.

29

With loss of generality, a homogenous problem is considered

with the assumption (n = 0). A has stable eigenvalues if and only
if, given any symmetric positive denite matrix Q, there exists a
unique symmetric positive denite matrix P satisfying the
Lyapunov equation as follows.

626

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

PA AT P Q :

30

Now consider the modeling uncertainty and suppose that the

uncertainty function satises

1
l  kXk;
2

where dene
satises

31

Q
l kkmin
and the derivative of Lyapunov function
max P

V_ X T PAX X T AT PX 2X T Pn

Error (m)

knk 6

X T QX 2X T Pn
6 X T QX 2kPXk  knk

32

6 kmin Q  kXk2 2kmax PkXk  knk

kmax PkXk  lkXk  2knk

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

Time (sec)

4.1. Case III: Experimentation for real-time tracking tasks

To compare the differences between the open loop system and
the proposed method, the reference is a ramp waveform with the
amplitude of 10 lm. Figs. 12 and 13 show the tracking performances of the open-loop system, the system with the feedforward
controller, and the system with the feedforward and feedback controller for the X- and Y-stage. The same desired reference is given
to the X- and Y-stages controller simultaneously as follows.

xd 105 t  us t  2us t  1 us t  2;

Fig. 15. The tracking error of the micro-stepping stage and the positioning
reference to the PAFBM.

Error (m)

Therefore, the closed-loop system is stable, if the modeling

uncertainties is bounded with KP1 and KI1 satisfying the above
condition.
To implement the proposed method on the tracking tasks of the
PA-actuated FBM, the linear encoders and the linear scales with
0.1 lm resolution are equipped on the X- and Y-stages to be the
positioning sensors and the setup is detailed in Fig. 1. To achieve
the proposed feedforward control with the PI feedback controller,
the DS1104 PPC control board is used as the real-time controller.
Figs. 10 and 11 describe the control scheme and the embedded
Simulink code. Fig. 11 shows that the positioning signals are fed
back to the controller via the blocks DS1104ENC_POS_C1 and
DS1104ENC_POS_C2. The positioning error for the PI feedback control can be obtained via comparing the positioning feedback signals
from the desired input. The PI feedback control combining with the
feedforward controls is used to produce the control signals, which
are transferred into the analog signal by the block DS1104DAC_C1
and DS1104DAC_C5. Then, the output signals are amplied by the
PZT driver to actuate the PAs to make the FBM track the desired
trajectory. To validate the performance of the proposed method,
a tracking task of X- and Y-axis stages are illustrated as follows.

33

where us(t) is a unit step function. The parameters for the feedforward controller is obtained in Case II, the experimental results show
that the proposed feedforward controller can almost compensate
the hysteresis nonlinearities. The sample time for real-time implementation of the dSPACE controller is set as 0.001 s. Figs. 12 and
13 show the tracking errors of the three controllers for the X- and
Y-stages; the maximal tracking errors of the open-loop system are
about 1.2 to +0.7 lm for the X-stage and 0.9 to +0.8 lm for the
Y-stage.
Figs. 12 and 13 show that the proposed feedforward controller
reduces the X-axiss tracking errors from 1.2 to +0.7 lm to 0.3
to +0.2 lm and it reduces the Y-axiss tracking errors from 0.9
to +0.8 lm to 0.2 to +0.2 lm. The proposed feedforward control
based on PSO is valid according to the resulting response. The
feed-forward controller with PI feedback controller is applied to
the positioning task. The parameters for the PI feedback controller

Fig. 16. The tracking error for the integrated system for the micro-stepping stage
with compensation of the PAFBM.

are Kp = 0.8 and KI = 480 for each X-axis and Y-axis of PAFBM. Figs.
12 and 13 show that the feedforward with feedback controller has
tracking errors about 0.1 to +0.1 lm for both the X- and Y-stages.
Therefore, this case study validates the proposed method and the
positioning precision has been within 0.1 lm.

4.2. Case IV: Experimentation for the integrated system

To check the feasibility of this PAFBM to compensate positioning errors of a coarse positioning system, a micro-stepping stage
(NAPLES COOMBE 29000, made by UK) is used as the coarse positioning stage equipped with a linear encoder and the linear scale
with 0.1 lm resolution. The micro-stepping stage is controlled
using an open-loop controller, but the residue tracking error of
each step is measured by the linear encoder and the tracking error
is transferred to become the reference of the PAFBM via dSPACE
controller. Fig. 14 shows the response of the micro-stepping stage
with respect to the sinusoidal reference with 1 mm amplitude and
Fig. 15 shows the tracking error of the micro-stepping stage and
the positioning reference to the PAFBM. Fig. 15 shows that the

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

tracking error for the coarse positioning stage is about 2 to

+4 lm. Fig. 16 shows that the tracking error for the integrated system is reduced to 0.2 to +0.2 lm. Because the communication between the two systems causes the time delay, the accuracy of the
integrated system is worse than the tracking error of 0.1 to
+0.1 lm in Case III, due to. The experimental results validate that
the PAFBM using the linear encoder feedback was able to enhance
the precision of coarse positioning stages.

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a novel monolithic FBM actuated by the
embedded piezoelectric actuators (PAs) to achieve the translations
in the X- and Y-axes. In Case 1, the modeling identication for the
standalone PAFBM using the real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA),
clonal selection algorithm (CSA) and particle swarm optimization
(PSO) were studied; the simulation results are found that the
PSO method takes less time than RGA and CSA to obtain the optimal solution. In Case 2, the cross-coupling effect between the X and
Y axes was discussed; the performance of the standalone model
was used to make comparison with the cross-coupling model.
The results show that the proposed cross-coupling model has less
modeling error than the standalone model. In Case 3, to compensate the nonlinearity of hysteresis, the PI feedback controller with
the feed-forward control based on inverse hysteresis model was
illustrated. The real-time experimental results validated the proposed method and the positioning precision has been within
0.1 lm. In Case 4, the PAFMB with linear encoder feedback was
studied to enhance the precision of coarse positioning stages.
Experimental results validated the effectiveness of the proposed
approach.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Science Council under
Grant NSC100-2221-E-027-031 and the Ministry of Economic
Affairs, ROC under Grant 98-EC-17-A-16-S1-127.
References
[1] Sakuta S, Okawa K, Ueda K. Experimental studies on ultra-precision positioning
an inchworm movement method using ne and coarse positioning. Int J Jpn
Soc Prec Eng 1993;27:23540.
[2] Okazaki Y, Asano S, Goto T. Dual-servo mechanical stage for continuous
positioning. Int J Jpn Soc Prec Eng 1993;27:1723.
[3] Lee CW, Kim SW. An ultra precision stage for alignment of wafers in advanced
microlithography. Prec Eng 1997;21:11322.
[4] Chen JS, Dwang IC. A ballscrew drive mechanism with piezo-electric nut for
preload and motion control. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2000;40:51326.
[5] Pahk HJ, Lee DS, Park JH. Ultra precision positioning system for servo motorpiezo actuator using the dual servo loop and digital lter implementation. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 2001;41:5161.
[6] Abramovitch DY, Andersson SB, Pao LY, Schitter G. A tutorial on the
mechanisms, dynamics, and 28 control of atomic force microscopes. In:
American control conference; 2007. p. 3488502.
[7] Clayton GM, Tien S, Leang KK, Zou Q, Devasia S. A review of feedforward
control approaches in nanopositioning for high-speed SPM. J Dyn Syst Measur
Control 2009;131:10119.
[8] Devasia S, Eleftheriou E, Reza Moheimani SO. A survey of control issues in
nanopositioning. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 2007;15:80223.
[9] Ryu JW, Gweon DG, Moon KS. Optimal design of a exure hinge based XYHz
wafer stage. Prec Eng 1997;21:1828.
[10] Chang SH, Chung KT, Hon CC. An ultra-precision XYHz piezo-micropositioner
part I: design and analysis. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect Freq Control
1999;46:897905.
[11] Chang SH, Chung KT, Hon CC. An ultra-precision XYHz piezo-micropositioner
part II: experiment and performance. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect Freq
Control 1999;46:90612.
[12] Uchino K. Piezoelectric actuator and ultrasonic motors. Norwell (MA): Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1997.
[13] Catalog PI. Theory and application of piezo actuators and PZT nanopositioning
systems. Waldbronn (Germany): Physik Instrument; 1998.

627

[14] Lee CW, Kim SW. An ultraprecision stage for alignment of wafers in advance
microlithography. Prec Eng 1997;21:11322.
[15] Leang KK, Fleming AJ. High-speed serial-kinematic AFM scanner: design and
drive considerations. Asian J Control 2009;11:14453.
[16] Schitter G, Thurner PJ, Hansma PK. Design and input-shaping control of a novel
scanner for high-speed atomic force microscopy. Mechatronics 2008;18:
2828.
[17] Comstock R. Charge control of piezoelectric actuators to reduce hysteresis
effects. United States patent #4.263,527. Assignee: The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory, Cambridge, MA; 1981.
[18] Goldfarb M, Celanovic N. Modeling piezoelectric stack actuators for control of
micromanipulation. IEEE Trans Control Syst 1997;17:6979.
[19] Tsai JC, Chen CL, Lee YH, Yang HY, Hsu MS, Chen KH. Modied hysteretic
current control for improving transient response of boost converter. IEEE Trans
Circ Syst 2011;58:196779.
[20] Mayergoyz ID. The Preisach model for hysteresis. Berlin: Springer; 1991.
[21] KrasnoselskI MA, Pokrovski AV. Systems with hysteresis. New
York: Springer-Verlag; 1980.
[22] Mayergoyz ID. Dynamic Preisach models of hysteresis. IEEE Trans Magn
1988;24:29257.
[23] Stepanenko Y, Su CY. Intelligent control of piezoelectric actuators. In: Proc IEEE
conf deci control; 1998. p. 42349.
[24] Bouc R. Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis. In: 4th Int
conf on nonlinear oscillation; 1967.
[25] Wen YK. Method of random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech
1976;102:24963.
[26] Zhang X, Huang Y, Liu J, Wang X, Gao F. A method identifying the parameters
of BoucWen hysteretic nonlinear model based on genetic algorithm. Intell
Process Syst 1997:6025.
[27] Xu QS, Li YM. Dahl model-based hysteresis compensation and precise
positioning control of an XY parallel micromanipulator with piezoelectric
actuation. J Dyn Syst Measur Control 2010;132:041011104101112.
[28] Chua LO, Bass SC. A generalized hysteresis model. IEEE Trans Circ Theory
1972;19:3648.
[29] Leite JV, Sadowski N, Kuo-Peng P, Batistela NJ, Bastos JPA. The inverse Jiles
Atherton
model
parameters
identication.
IEEE
Trans
Magn
2003;39:1397400.
[30] Croft D, Devasia S. Vibration compensation for high speed scanning tunneling
microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 1999;70:46005.
[31] Croft D, Shedd G, Devasia S. Creep hysteresis and vibration compensation for
piezoactuators: atomic force microscopy application. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas
Control 2001;123:3543.
[32] Schitter G, Thurner PJ, Hansma PK. Design and input-shaping control of a novel
scanner for high-speed atomic force microscopy. Mechatronics
2008;18:2828.
[33] Perez H, Zou Q, Devasia S. Design and control of optimal scan-trajectories:
scanning tunneling microscope example. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control
2004;126:18797.
[34] Fleming AJ, Wills A. Optimal input signals for band-limited scanning systems.
In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC world congress; 2008: p. 1180510.
[35] Barrett RC, Quate CF. Optical scan-correction system applied to atomic force
microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 1991;62:13939.
[36] Francis BA, Wonham WM. The internal model principle for linear
multivariable regulators. Appl Math Optim 1975;2:17094.
[37] Francis BA, Wonham WM. The internal model principle of control theory.
Automatica 1976;12:45765.
[38] Pao, LY, Butterworth JA, Abramovitch DY. Combined feedforward/feedback
control of atomic force microscopes. In: Proceedings of the 2007 American
control conference; 2007: p. 350915.
[39] Li Y, Bechhoefer J. Feedforward control of a closed-loop piezoelectric
translation stage for atomic force microscope. Rev Sci Instrum 2007;78:
013702.
[40] Leang KK, Devasia S. Feedback-linearized inverse feedforward for creep,
hysteresis, and vibration compensation in AFM piezoactuators. IEEE Trans
Control Syst Technol 2007;15:92735.
[41] Aphale SS, Devasia S, Moheimani SOR. High-bandwidth control of a
piezoelectric nanopositioning stage in the presence of plant uncertainties.
Nanotechnology 2008;19:125503.
[42] Salapaka S, Sebastian A, Cleveland JP, Salapaka MV. High bandwidth nanopositioner: a robust control approach. Rev Sci Instrum 2002;73:323241.
[43] Ha JL, Kung YS, Fung RF, Hsien SC. A comparison of tness functions for the
identication of a piezoelectric hysteretic actuator based on the real-coded
genetic algorithm. Sens Actuat 2006;132:64350.
[44] Jang MJ, Chen CL, Lee JR. Modeling and control of a piezoelectric actuator
driven system with asymmetric hysteresis. J Franklin Inst Eng Appl Math
2009;346:1732.
[45] Lin CJ, Chen SY. Evolutionary algorithm based feedforward control for
contouring of a biaxial piezo-actuated stage. Mechatronics 2009;19:
82939.
[46] Lin CJ, Yang SR. Precise positioning of piezo-actuated stages using hysteresisobserver based control. Mechatronics 2006;16:41726.
[47] Products P-280 and P-762, Physik Instrumente product catalog,
micropostioning, nanaopositioning, nanoautomation: solutions for cuttingedge technologies; 2001.
[48] Fischer FL. Symmetrical 3 DOF compliance structure. US patent #4447048;
1981.

628

C.-J. Lin, P.-T. Lin / Mechatronics 22 (2012) 614628

[49] Smith AR, Gwo S, Shih CK. A new high resolution two-dimensional
micropositioning device for scanning probe microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum
1994;64:32169.
[50] Dagalakis NG, Kramer JA, Amatucci E, Bunch R. Kinematic modelling and
analysis of planer micro-positioner. In: Proceedings of ASPE 2001 annual
meeting; 2001: p. 1358.
[51] Agilent Technologies NanoStepper. MIT technology review, J7220 data sheet.
[52] Bednorz JG. Piezoelectric XY positioner. US patent #4520570; 1985.
[53] M-850, F-206 HEXAPOD. Physik Instrumente product catalog; 2001.
[54] Culpepper ML. Multiple degree of freedom complaint mechanism. US patent
application #20030086751; 2003.
[55] Dagalakis NG, Amatucci EG. Six degree of freedom micropositioner. US patent
#6484602, 2002.
[56] Davies PA. Positioning mechanism. US patent #6193226; 2001.
[57] Jokiel B, Benavides GL, Bieg LF, Allen JA. Planer and spatial three degree of
freedom micro stages in silicon MEMS. In: Proceedings of ASPE 2001 annual
meeting; 2001: p. 325.
[58] Eom TB, Kim JY. Long range stage for the metrological atomic force
microscope. In: Proceedings of ASPE 2001 annual meeting; 2001. p. 1569.
[59] Hitachi Ltd. Ultra-precision two-dimensional moving apparatus. US patent
#4575942; 1986.
[60] IBM Corp. Two-dimensional positioning apparatus, US patent 5059090;
1991.

[61] Awtar S. Synthesis and analysis of parallel kinematic XY exure mechanisms.

Doctor of Science thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, February 2004.
[62] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and articial systems. Ann Arbor (MI): The
University of Michigan Press; 1975.
[63] Kennedy J, Eberhart RC. Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the
IEEE, international conference on neural networks, Perth, Australia; 1995. p.
19428.
[64] Clerc M, Kennedy J. The particle swarm: explosion, stability, and convergence
in a multi-dimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6:5873.
[65] Dasgupta D. Articial immune systems and their applications. Ed.: SpringerVerlag; 1999.
[66] Burnet FM. Clonal selection and after. In: Be ll GI, Perelson AS, Pimbley Jr GH,
editors. Theoretical immunology. Marcel Dekker Inc.; 1978.
[67] De Castro LN, Von Zuben FJ. Learning and optimization using the clonal
selection principle. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6:23951.
[68] Hassan R, Cohanim BK, Weck OD, Venter G. A comparison of particle swarm
optimization and the genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials
conference, Austin, TX; 2005.
[69] Sidhartha P, Narayana PP. Comparison of particle swarm optimization and
genetic algorithm for FACTS-based controller design. Appl Soft Comput
2008;8:141827.