Modeling and System Identification of

Hydraulic-electric Actuator - A GUI

Application for illustration
CIANYI KAZADI YANNICK1
1
State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Systems, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China

ABSTRACT In this work, a dynamic modeling and system identification process have been conducted
on an hydraulic-electric actuator driven system. The work aims to design the system model in term
of parameters that can be easily identified in time and frequency domains, using some known system
identification methods, such as the Least Square Estimation, and the Matlab System Identification Toolbox.
The estimate model is validate through open-loop numerical simulation of the real and estimate models.
Finally, an application built in Matlab App Designer has been proposed in order to illustrate the modeling
analysis, as well as the identification process.

INDEX TERMS Dynamic modeling, Hydraulic-electric actuator, System identification, Matlab App
Design.

I. INTRODUCTION of the real system is known. While a grey box has only a part
A model is a set of mathematical equations describing ad- of known system parameters.
equately a physical system [1]. A physical system can be The current work aims to identify the parameters of a
a robotic, biological, chemical, social, and economical. A system in time and frequency domains. A propose a designed
system can also be an existing real problem, caused by hu- application based on Matlab App Designer that can be used
man, continuous or discrete system, deterministic or random a didactic material. The system considered in this work is na
system. G.Box stated that all models are wrong, but some hydraulic-electric actuator driven system. The choice of such
are useful [2]. Einstein stated that everything should be make a system is motivated by its wide application such as lifting,
simple as possible, but no too simple. Thus an adequate conveyor system, hexapod system, car partaking system, and
system is represented by equation that gives sufficiently a manipulator arm.
precise prediction of system properties without being hard The layout of the work is as follows: the section (II)
to be evaluated. A real problem can be classified i nto three describe the dynamic model and the modeling analysis of
categories [3]: forward, inverse and design. In a forward the hydraulic-electric actuator, the section (III) focuses on
problem, one assumes the system parameter are known, and the system identification techniques, and the section (IV)
the problem is reduced to the prediction only. In inverse proposes a Matlab App designer applications to demonstrate
problem, the problem focus on the determination system the modeling analysis and the system identification process.
parameters from known input and output data, while a design
problem aims to regulate a certain state of the system for II. DYNAMIC MODEL OF AN HYDRAULIC-ELECTRIC
given its parameters. ACTUATOR
The system dynamics is characterized by the following equa-
In real situation, the system parameters, even in a design
tions (1) [5] [6].
problem, are unknown. Therefore, the system can be identi-
fied b y a n e quivalent o r e stimate s ystem w orking c loser to M ẍ + B ẋ + Af S(ẋ) + d(t) = A1 p1 − A2 p2 (1a)
the real system. Such an identified system can be white box,
βe V̇1 βe Q1
black box, or a grey box [4]. A white box represents a system ṗ1 = − + (1b)
derived from physics law and experimental observations and V1 V1
expressed in mathematics form, including variables, parame- βe V̇2 βe Q2
ṗ2 = − − (1c)
ters and uncertain terms. A black box assume none parameter V2 V2

1
 CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

The nonlinear model (4) can therefore be expressed in

state-space form (6) by considering a new variable of state-
space variables ξ given by (5)
 T
ξ = ξ1 ξ2 ξ3 ξ4 (5)
where ξ1 = x, ξ2 = ẋ, ξ3 = p1 and ξ4 = p2 , hence ẍ = ξ˙2 ,
ξ2 = ξ˙1 , ṗ1 = ξ˙3 and ṗ2 = ξ˙4 .

ξ˙ = f (ξ) + g(ξ)u + d(t)

(6)
y = Cξ
where C = I4 , d(t) = [0, −D, 0, 0]T , f (ξ, t) and g(ξ, t) are
given in (7) and (8) respectively.
ξ2
 
−a1 ξ2 − a2 tan−1 (900 ξ2 ) + a3 ξ3 − a4 ξ4 
Figure 1: Schematic of the hydraulic-electric actuator driven 
ξ2

f (ξ) =  −
 
system  a5 + a6 ξ1


 ξ2 
a5 − a6 ξ1
where M is the mass load, B is the viscous coefficient, Af (7)
is the column friction coefficient, S(x) is the a nonlinear ,  
function given by (2), x is the piston position, d(t) is various 0
disturbance from environments, A1 = πDc2 /4 is the effective √0
 
 
area of piston chamber and A2 = π(Dc2 − d2c )/4 is the effec-

 ∆ξ3 

tive area of piston rod chamber, p1 is effective pressure of pis- g(ξ) =  a7 + a8 ξ1 

 (8)
ton chamber, p2 is effective pressure of piston rod chamber, √
 
 
Dc is the cylinder diameter, dc is the cylinder rod diameter,
 ∆ξ4 
− u
and βe is the bulk modulus of fluids. V1 = A1 (L0 + x) is a9 − a10 ξ1
the volume of piston chamber, and V2 = A2 (L0 − x) is
(
ps − ξ3 for u > 0
the volume of piston rod chamber so that V̇1 = A1 ẋ and with ∆ξ3 = and
V̇2 = −A2 ẋ. L0 is the chamber length when the piston at its ξ3 − pr for u < 0
(
initial status. ξ4 − pr for u > 0
2 ∆ξ4 = , and ai the model param-
S(ẋ) = tan−1 (900 ẋ) (2) ps − ξ4 for u < 0
π eters given in Tab.(1).
Q1 and Q2 are the flow rate through two chambers respec-
tively given by (3a) and (3b) respectively. A. LINEAR SYSTEM OF HYDRAULIC-ELECTRIC
( SYSTEM
ps − p1 , for u > 0
Consider the working point around ξ˙i = 0, i = 1, 2, 3, 4,
p
Q1 = Kq1 u ∆p1 , ∆p1 = (3a)
p1 − pr , for u < 0 under no disturbance effect (d(t) = 0). Hence, from the first
(
p p2 − pr , for u > 0 two equations in (6), one can find the equilibrium point at;
Q2 = Kq2 u ∆p2 , ∆p2 = (3b) 
ps − p2 , for u < 0 ξ2 = ẋe = 0
A (9)
where u is the control input of proportional valve, Kq1 and ξ3 = 2 ξ4,e = 12.0 M pa
A1
Kq2 are the flow gain coefficient of the servovalve, ps is the
supply pressure of the fluid, and pr is the tank or reference Thus, the last two equations in (6) can vanish only when
pressure. Q1 (u, ξ3 ) = 0 and Q2 (u, ξ4 ). Since the pressure difference
By substituting the system dynamic equations (2), (3a) and ∆p 6= 0, then the only equilibrium condition is ue = 0.
(3b) into equations (1), the dynamic model becomes Therefore the working point occurs at

B 2Af A1 A2 d(t)  ξ1,e = 0
ẍ = − ẋ − tan−1 (900 ẋ) + p1 − p2 −


ξ = 0
M πM M M M 2,e
(10)
(4a)
 3,e = 12.06 MPa
ξ

√ 
ẋ βe Kq1 ∆p1 ξ4,e = 18.189 MPa

ṗ1 = −βe + u (4b)
L0 + x A1 L0 + x Let define the the all right hand side of (6) as a multi-
√
ẋ βe Kq2 ∆p2 variable function fi (ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 , ξ4 , u), i = 1, 2, 3, 4. Accord-
ṗ2 = βe − u (4c)
L0 − x A2 L0 − x ing to linearization principle, for small perturbation, using
2
CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

Table 1: Model parameters

a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 D ps pr
B 2Af A1 A2 L0 1 L0 A1 A1 L0 A2 A2 d(t)
32MPa 0MPa
M πM M M βe βe βe kq1 βe kq1 βe kq2 βe kq2 M

the Taylor Series expansion at equilibrium point, the local 0.04

case_1
0.1
case_1

linearization of the nonlinear model (6) is of the closed-from 0.03

case_2
case_3 0.05
case_2
case_3
case_4 case_4
(11)
0.02 0
(
δ ξ˙ = A δξ + B δu + d(t)
(11) 0.01 -0.05

δy = C δξ + D δu
0 -0.1
T 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

where δ ξ˙ = δ ξ˙1 δ ξ˙2 δ ξ˙3 δ ξ˙4


is the linearized state-
space vector. The matrices A, B, C and D are given by (see 16 24

Appendix () for derivation) 14

case_1
case_2 22
case_1
case_2
case_3 case_3
    case_4 20 case_4
0 1 0 0 0 12 18
0 −λ1 λ2 −λ3 
 ; B= 0 
 
A= 0 −λ4 0
10 16

0   λ5  14
8
0 λ4 0 0 −λ6 12

−1 T 6 10
and C = I4×4 , D = 04×1 , and d(t) = [0, −M , 0, 0] 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

(12)
with λi the system parameters given in Tab.(2) with Figure 2: Simulation results of the hydraulic-electric actuator.
Case 1: u = 2 sin(4πt) - d = 5.0e3 sin(2πt), Case 2:
Table 2: System parameters u = 2 sin(4πt) - d = 0, Case 3: u = 6 sin(4πt) -
Parameters formula d = 5.0e3 sin(2πt), Case 4: u = 6 sin(4πt) - d = 0
λ1 (B + 1800π −1 Af )/M
λ2 A1 /M
λ3 A2 /M
λ4 βe /L0 4 simulation results because in each couple of cases the
βe kq1 p disturbance d(t) is divided by the big value of mass M ,hence
λ5 ∆ξ3,e
A1 (L0 + ξ1,e ) it does not affect much.
βe kq2 p
λ6 ∆ξ4,e The open-loop numerical simulations of the linearized
A2 (L0 − ξ1,e )
model have resulted in the following response (3), under
 the cases as during nonlinear system open-loop numerical

∆ξ3e = ps − ξ3e ; u > 0 simulations.

∆ξ3e = ξ3e ; u < 0
(13) 0.04 0.1

∆ξ 4e = ξ4e ; u > 0 case_1 case_1
 case_2 case_2

∆ξ4e = ps − ξ4e ; u < 0

 0.03 case_3 0.05 case_3
case_4 case_4

The actual state variables are 0.02 0



 x = ∆ξ1 + ξ1,e 0.01 -0.05


v = ∆ξ + ξ
2 2,e 0 -0.1
(14) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5



 p 1 = ∆ξ 3 + ξ 3,e
p2 = ∆ξ4 + ξ4,e

25 35
case_1 case_1
case_2 30 case_2
20
Consider the initial state variables of system at x(t = 0) = case_3
case_4 25
case_3
case_4

ẋ(t = 0) = 0, p1 (t = 0) = 12 M P a, and p2 (t = 0) = 15 20

A1 10 15

p1 (t = 0) = 18.189 M P a. With following kinematic 10

A2 5
5
boundary conditions pr ≤ p ≤ ps and −0.8 L0 ≤ x ≤
0 0
0.8 L0 . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

The open-loop numerical simulations have lead to the

following responses Fig.(2) under different control inputs and Figure 3: Simulation results of the linearized model. Case
lumped disturbances. 1: u = 2 sin(4πt) - d = 5.0e3 sin(2πt), Case 2: u =
From the above figure w e n otice t hat t here i s n o much 2 sin(4πt) - d = 0, Case 3: u = 6 sin(4πt) - d =
difference between the case 1 - case 2 and case 3 - case 5.0e3 sin(2πt), Case 4: u = 6 sin(4πt) - d = 0

3
 CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

The results from figure (3) shown how proportionally lin- 0.04 0.1

ear are the outputs from low level to high as input oscillation 0.03 0.05

continue to excite the system with minimized disturbance due

0.02 0
to the disturbance (divided by the mass of the system).
0.01 -0.05

B. COMPARISON BETWEEN NOMINAL AND

0 -0.1
LINEARIZED SYSTEM SIMULATION RESULTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

10-3 25 35
15 0.04

0.03 30
20
0.02 25
10
15 20
0.01

0 10 15

5 10
-0.01
5
5
-0.02
0 0
0 -0.03 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

16 24
Figure 6: Nonlinear model versus linearized model for case
22
3: u = 6 sin(4πt) - d = 5.0e3 sin(2πt)
14
20

12 18 0.04 0.1

16
0.03 0.05
10
14

0.02 0
8 12
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

0.01 -0.05

Figure 4: Nonlinear model versus linearized model for case

0 -0.1
1: u = 2 sin(4πt) - d = 5.0e3 sin(2πt) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

25 35

0.014 0.04 30
20
0.012 0.03 25
15 20
0.01 0.02

0.008 0.01 10 15

0.006 0 10
5
0.004 -0.01 5

0.002 -0.02 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 -0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 7: Nonlinear model versus linearized model for case

16 24 4: u = 6 sin(4πt) - d = 0
22
14
20

12 18
requires the nonlinear system (1) to be expressed in term of
10
16
linear regressor form (15).
14

8
0 1 2 3 4 5
12
0 1 2 3 4 5
y1 (t) = ϕ1 (t)T θ1 + ∆1 (15a)
T
y2 (t) = ϕ2 (t) θ2 (15b)
Figure 5: Nonlinear model versus linearized model for case
2: u = 2 sin(4πt) - d = 0 where ϕ(t) is the regressor matrix given by ϕ1 (t) =
 T
2 ẋ
ẍ, ẋ, tan−1 (900 ẋ), 1 and ϕ2 (t) = − +
From the above results Fig.(4) - Fig.(7), the comparison √π L 0 +x
reveals that there is close behavior of nonlinear and linearized Kq1 ∆p1
u. θ is the unknown vector parameters given by
system. This reveals also how good is the linearization being A1 L0 + x T
done. θ1 = M, B, Af , do and θ2 = βe . ∆ is the noise given by
d(t) = d0 +∆t ( with d0 is the slow time-varying component
III. SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION OF of the disturbance d(t)), and y(t) is the output function given
HYDRAULIC-ELECTRIC ACTUATOR by y1 (t) = A1 p1 − A2 p2 and y2 (t) = ṗ1 .
A. TIME DOMAIN SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION As noticed, a stable filter H(s) with relative order more
Consider a Least Square Estimation method for time do- than one (17) should be applied to both sides of (15) in order
main system identification. The application of such method to cancel out some noise attached to the measurable data x, ẋ,
4
CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

and ẍ, which are obtained through sensors. The acceleration B. FREQUENCY DOMAIN SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
ẍ is obtained from differentiation, and through filtering, all Consider the linearized model (11), with given initial states
the signals are expected to be in the same phase. Therefore x0 = 0, ẋ0 = 0, p1o = 12e6 M P a, p2o = 12e6 M P a,
(15) becomes (16) u0 = 0, and d = 0. And let define new state variable such
that δξ = Z and δ ξ˙ = Ż, (11) can be written as (19).
yf (t) = ϕ(t)Tf θ + ∆f (16)
ż = Az + Bu (19a)
1 y = Cz + Du (19b)
H(s) = (17)
τf s + 1 where A, B et C are given in (12), with λi the system
where τf = 0.01 for quick stability. The estimate vector parameters.
parameter θ̂ if then obtained using the LSE formula [4]: The transfer function from input u to output y of the model
−1 T (19) is given by
θ̂ = ϕTf ϕf

ϕf yf (18)
P (s) = C(sI − A)−1 B + D (20)
The physical parameters for the system obtained with no In term of system parameters, (20) can be written as (21).
regard to the disturbance term ∆f are given in Tab.(3).
X(s) λ5 λ2 + λ6 λ3
P (s) = = 3 (21)
Table 3: LSE parameter estimate under no disturbance U (s) s + λ1 s2 + (λ2 λ4 + λ3 λ4 )s
Parameters Units Nominal Value Estimated Value It is obvious that the open-loop transfer function P (s) has
M kg 4000 4000 a one of the poles at zero, which make P (s) to be unstable.
B N m/s 1500 1500
Af N 3000 3000 Since the purpose of the linearization is to ensure that the
βe Pa 1.1e9 9.15e8 system variables stay no far away from their initial values,
Dc m 0.12 0.12 therefore one can use a proportional controller C(s) = Kp
dc m 0.07 0.07
d0 - 0 so that the closed-loop transfer function H(s) (22) is stable.

From Tab.(3), except for the geometric parameters of the P (s)C(s)

H(s) =
system such as Dc and dc , which are measurable, the esti- 1 + P (s)C(s)
mation of other parameters such as the mass of the estimated Kp (λ5 λ2 + λ6 λ3 )
system, the viscous coefficient and Column Friction is accu- =
s3 + λ1 s2 + (λ2 λ4 + λ3 λ4 )s + Kp (λ5 λ2 + λ6 λ3 )
rate. The bulk modulus of fluids is estimate with a relative (22)
error of 16.82% . The numerical expression of (22) using theoretical values
The physical parameters for the system obtained under in Tab.(2) gives (23).
different disturbances ∆f are given in Tab.(4).
243.7
P (s) = (23)
Table 4: LSE parameter estimate under disturbance s3
+ 430.1s2 + 1.721e04s
Estimation under varying disturbances For a quick stability response one chooses a controller such
Para Units Nom val
θ̂|d1 θ̂|d2 θ̂|d3 θ̂|w-noise that Kp = 10. Then the closed-loop transfer function is
M kg 4000 4000 4000.1 4002.5 4003.4
B Nm/s 1500 1500 1493.1 1326.3 1655.5
Af N 3000 3000 3000.3 3006.4 3002.5 2.437e3
H(s) = (24)
d0 V 0.0 -9.918e-13 0.0245 0.6113 -3.6788 s3 +430.1s2 + 1.721e4s + 2.437e3
βe Pa 1.1e9 1.101e9 1.101e9 1.101e9 1.101e9
Dc m 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 At this point, based on the Matlab Ident command, one
dc m 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 can estimate a model of order 3 and null zeros. The esti-
mation process requires the use of input and output data.
In Tab.(4), θ̂|d1 , θ̂|d2 , θ̂|d3 and θ̂|w-noise are respectively The input data can be generated as a vector of length 1000
the estimated parameters under disturbance d = 0, d = composed by 100 sinusoids in 50 different sets of phases,
200 sin(2πt), d = 5000 sin(2πt), and d being a Gaussian of amplitude in range of -1 and 1, with a pass-band from
distributed zero mean white noise sequence with a standard 0 to 1000 Hz, through a Matlab command (idinput([1000 1
deviation of σ = 1000. 1],’sine’,[0,1],[-1 1],[100 50 1]). The generated input data
It can be seen from Tab.(4) that under no disturbance, the are given in Fig.(8).
estimate values of parameters are closed to the true values. The output data are the closed-loop responses of the input
Under small disturbance, the viscous coefficient is estimated data (8) when consider the nonlinear model (6) as the plant
with error of 0.46%, 11.58% under big disturbance effect, P (s). The measured input responses and input data are given
and 10.36% under white noise disturbance, while other pa- in Fig.(9).
rameters have been accurately estimated even with unbiased The Matlab command (ident) opens automatically the mat-
estimation. lab system identification toolbox Fig.(10) [7]. To process the
5
 CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

From the estimated closed-loop transfer function (25), and

knowing the p-controller Kp = 10, the estimated open-loop
transfer function becomes (26).

236.4
P̂ (s) = (26)
s3 + 9.073s2 + 1.711e4s + 8.598e − 7
which by identification with (21), leads to the following
estimated system parameters:
B̂ + 1800π −1 Âf
= λ̂1 (27a)
M̂
Â1 /M = λ̂2 (27b)
Â2 /M = λ̂3 (27c)
β̂e /L̂0 = λ̂4 (27d)
Figure 8: data input generated using idint Matlab command
β̂e kq1 p
∆P1o = λ̂5 (27e)
Â1 L̂0
β̂e kq2 p
∆P2o = λ̂6 (27f)
Â2 L̂0
From (27a) B̂ + 1800π −1 Âf = 9.073 M̂ . Using the stability
condition of (21), B̂ + 1800π −1 Âf > 0.
From (27b), (27c), (27e), and (27f), one can estimated βe
as
L̂0 M̂
β̂e = √ √ ≈ 1.1793e9
kq1 ∆P1o + kq2 ∆P2o
where Â1 , Â2 and M̂ = 4000 being measurable

IV. GUI APPLICATION FOR DEMONSTRATION

Figure 9: data input and output test generated after simulation
estimstion, the data Fig.(9) are imported, the selection of the
structure of the estimated model is guided by the structure of
the closed-loop transfer function (22), which has 3 poles and
a null zeros.
The obtained estimated model (25) fits the linearized one
at 84.81% as shown in Fig.(11).
2.932e3
Ĥ(s) = (25)
s3 + 11.12s2 + 1.716e4s + 3.539e − 6
The frequency response of the estimated model in term of
Bode diagram is given in Fig.(12).
To validate the estimated model (25), a comparative
closed-loop numerical simulation has been conducted in
order to see the error in the input responses between the
estimated model and the linearized model Fig.(13).
Looking at (24) and (25), it can be seen that the coefficients
of s2 are not the same due to the linearization of the Column
friction force Sf = arctan(900 x) which has a large slope.
The coefficients of s0 are also different due to the approxi-
mation errors.
6
Based on the Matlab App designer toolbox [8], a GUI appli-
cation has been designed as teaching material for students.
The application can be installed on a computer and found in
Matlab APP. When launching the application in Matlab, the
opening window is presented as if Fig.(14).
Three main steps are to be followed in order to complete
modeling analysis and system identification processes:
step 1: fill the system physical parameters such M , B, βe ,
Af , Dc , and dc . And specify the slow time-varying
disturbance, as shown in Fig.(15)
step 2: Define the control input and disturbance and proceed
with the simulation of nonlinear, linear or make a com-
parison between the two systems as shown in Fig.(16)
step 3: Initiate the system identification process by defining
first the type of disturbance, and for each case the
estimated system parameters are displayed as shown in
Fig.(17)
V. CONCLUSION
In this work a system identification process has been con-
ducted. The identifiable parameters belong to a designed
highly nonlinear dynamic model of an hydraulic-electric
actuator driven system. A linearized model of such system
has been derived, and a comparison with the nonlinear model
has been done through open-loop numerical simulation. The
results have shown a good approximation despite the high
CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER
Figure 10: Estimation process in Matlab Ident
Figure 11: Fitting estimated and linearized models
Figure 12: Frequency response in Bode diagram
nonlinearity of the real system. Two system identification
methods have been used: the least square estimation method
for the frequency domain identification, a nd t he M atlab SI
toolbox for frequency domain identification. The results have
shown a good estimation in time-domain. However, despite
input disturbance the estimation in frequency domain has
also shown remarkable results. For didactic material, GUI
application, has been proposed, in order to illustrate the mod-
eling analysis, as well as the system identification process.
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
-0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 13: Model validation results
References
[1] R. Aris, Mathematical modelling techniques. Courier Corporation, 1994.
[2] G. E. Box and N. R. Draper, Empirical model-building and response
surfaces. John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
[3] T. W. Thomas Witelski and M. B. Mark Bowen, “Methods of mathematical
modelling: Continuous systems and differential equations,” 2015.
[4] Y. B. Zhu Xiaocong, Mechatronics control I. Zhejiang University, Lecture
notes, 2020.
[5] M. A. Avila, A. G. Loukianov, and E. N. Sanchez, “Electro-hydraulic
actuator trajectory tracking,” in Proceedings of the 2004 American Control
Conference, vol. 3, pp. 2603–2608, IEEE, 2004.
[6] B. Šulc and J. Jan, “Non linear modelling and control of hydraulic actua-
tors,” Acta Polytechnica, vol. 42, no. 3, 2002.
[7] L. Ljung and R. Singh, “Version 8 of the matlab system identification
toolbox,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 45, no. 16, pp. 1826–1831, 2012.
[8] N. H. Harun, H. Hambali, M. G. Hassan, and K. N. Karim, MATLAB APP
Designer: Learn By Example (UUM Press). UUM Press, 2017.
APPENDIX. STATE-SPACE LINEARIZED MATRICES
The first order Taylor expansion of (6) around the working
point (10) gives the following matrices A, B, and d.
7
 CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

where
 p
  kq1 ps − ξ3,e ; u > 0

∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1 ∂Q1
= (34a)
 ∂ξ1 ∂ξ2 ∂ξ3 ∂ξ4  ∂u ξ=ξe k pξ ; u < 0

 ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe  q1 3,e
 ∂f2 ∂f2 ∂f2 ∂f2 
−k ue

q1
 
 ∂ξ
 1 ∂ξ2 ∂ξ3 ∂ξ4  
 p = 0 ;u > 0
ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe  2 p − ξ3,e
A=

 s
 ∂f3 ∂f3 ∂f3 ∂f3 ∂Q1
 
 = (34b)
 ∂ξ1

∂ξ2 ∂ξ3 ∂ξ4
 ∂ξ3 ξ=ξe
 kq1 ue
ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe ξ=ξe 
 
= 0 ;u < 0
 

 ∂f4 ∂f4 ∂f4 ∂f4   p
2 ξ3,e
∂ξ1 ξ=ξe ∂ξ2 ξ=ξe ∂ξ3 ξ=ξe ∂ξ4 ξ=ξe in addition,
(28)
T
∂f1 ∂f2 ∂f3 ∂f4 ∂f4 βe Q2e

B= =− = 0; (35a)
∂u ξ=ξe ∂u ξ=ξe ∂u ξ=ξe ∂u ξ=ξe ∂ξ1 ξ=ξe A2 L20
(29) ∂f4 βe
T = (35b)
∂f1

∂f2 ∂f3 ∂f4 ∂ξ2 ξ=ξe L0
d=
∂d ξ=ξe ∂d ξ=ξe ∂d ξ=ξe ∂d ξ=ξe
∂f4 ∂f4
= =0 (35c)
(30) ∂ξ3 ξ=ξe ∂d ξ=ξe
where
  with Q2e the operating point flow
∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1
= = = = =0 (31a)
∂ξ1 ∂ξ3 ∂ξ4 ∂u ∂d ξ=ξe  
βe ∂Q2 ∂Q2
∂f1 ∂f4 (Q4 (ξ4 , u)) = − δu + δξ4
=1 (31b) A2 L0 ∂u ∂ξ4
∂ξ2 ξ=ξe ξ=ξe
ξ=ξe
(36)
where
 p
kq2 ξ4,e
 ;u > 0
∂Q2
∂f2 = (37a)
=0; (32a) ∂u ξ=ξe k pp − ξ

∂ξ1 q2 s 4,e ;u < 0
ξ=ξe
k u

∂f2 B 2Af q2 e
= 0 ;u > 0
=− − 900

; (32b)  p
 2 ξ4,e

∂ξ2 M πM

ξ=ξe ∂Q2
= (37b)
∂f2 A1 ∂ξ4 ξ=ξe
 kq2 ue
= (32c)

− p =0 ;u < 0


∂ξ3 ξ=ξe M 2 ps − ξ4,e
∂f2 A2
=− (32d) By substituting the equations (32) to (37) into the state
∂ξ4 ξ=ξe M
space equations (28) to (30), the matrices A and B in the
∂f2 equation (11) are given in (12).
=0; (32e)
∂u ξ=ξe
∂f2
= − M −1 ; (32f)
∂d ξ=ξe
∂f3 βe Q1e
=− = 0; (32g)
∂ξ1 ξ=ξe A1 L20
∂f3 βe
=− (32h)
∂ξ2 ξ=ξe L0

√
with Q1e = kq1 ∆ξ3 ue = 0 the operating point flow.

 
βe ∂Q1 ∂Q1
∂f3 (Q1 (ξ3 , u)) = δu + δξ3
A1 L0 ∂u ξ=ξe ∂ξ3 ξ=ξe
(33a)
∂f3 ∂f3
= =0 (33b)
∂ξ4 ξ=ξe ∂d ξ=ξe

8
CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

Clic to input
parameters
and initial
Display input responses conditions Time domain SI

Select input data

Figure 14: Opening application

Figure 15: Filling system physical parameters

9
 CIANYI Y.KAZADI, READING PAPER

OL SIM of Nonlinear System

OL SIM of Linearized System

OL SIM of Nonlinear et Linear Systems

Figure 16: Open-loop numerical simulations

Figure 17: System identification process

10