2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)
System Identification and Predictive Functional
Control for Electro-hydraulic Actuator System
N.H. Izzuddin, Ahmad 'Athif Mohd Faudzi, Mohd
Ridzuan Johari
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
lohor Bahru, Malaysia
izzuddin5585@gmail.com
Abstract- Nowadays, electro-hydraulic actuator (ERA) is
widely applied in industries. This study presents the modeling
and development of a predictive functional control (PFC)
algorithm for position control of EHA. System identification
(SI) approach is used to obtain the linear transfer function of
the system in discrete form. PFC is proposed based on its
ability to predict the future outputs of the actual plant over the
predictive horizon and computes the control effort over the
control horizon at every sampling instance. Numerical
simulation and real-time experiment are conducted to study
the PFC performance with respect to an optimized PID
controller tuned by using particle swarm optimization (PID­
PSO) for several position tracking inputs. The result shows
that the PFC algorithm has better performance in term of
overshoot and integral absolute error (IAE) as compared to the
optimized PID.
Keywords-predictive functional control; electro-hydraulic
actuator;position control; PlD controller; PSO optimization
I. INTRODUCTION
Compared to other popular actuators, EHA has many
advantages such as high force delivered by the actuator over
the weight and size. Unlike electrical actuator, the EHA can
maintain high loading capabilities for a longer period of
time. These advantages contribute to the vast successful
applications of the EHA to date. However, there are few
issues that are associated with EHA system.
The issues that causing dynamic behavior of EHA are
uncertainties, time-varying and nonlinearities caused by
nonlinear flow and pressure characteristics, backlash in
control valve, actuator friction and variation in fluid volume
due to piston motion and fluid compressibility [1-2]. These
issues cause the modeling and controller designs of EHA
becoming more complex.
Mathematical model of EHA system can be obtained
using physical modeling or identification techniques. The
forms of models using system identification techniques are
linear models, non-linear models and intelligent models [3].
Linear model is the most popular representation of the
relationship between input and output due to its simplicity
as compared with other forms. Auto-regressive Exogenous
(ARX) that is one of the widely used form has been utilized
978-1-4673-7124-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
138
Khairuddin Osman
Faculty of Electronic and Computer Engineering
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
Melaka, Malaysia
in [4-9] to obtain linear mathematical model of EHA. These
studies have shown that a high degree of precision can be
approximate using ARX model.
As the EHA suffer nonlinearities, controller can be
implemented to solve the issue. Large varieties of
controllers has been introduced to date which involved
linear control, non-linear control and artificial intelligence
approaches such as PID [5,8,10], adaptive control [2, 11-
14], sliding mode control (SMC) [2,15-16] and model
predictive control (MPC). Over the past two decades, there
has been significant interest on model predictive control
(MPC) [17].
Predictive functional control (PFC) is one of the most
widely implemented MPC. It has low online computation
because the control law only consists of the basic function.
Besides, the control parameter is also easier to tune [18].
These advantages have made the controller becomes popular
and successfully applied to various processes with low
sampling time to very high sampling time such as guided
missile [17].
In this paper, identification of the EHA model is
obtained using two types of input signals. The model is used
for PFC algorithm design. The controller is then deployed
into EHA system. The performance of PFC algorithm is
compared with PID controller tuned by using PSO
algorithm. The PSO algorithm is widely used in optimizing
controller parameters such as in [19].
II. MODEL IOENTIFICAT10N
This section will be discussing parametric identification
using non-recursive estimation for a linear discrete-time of
the EHA system. Third order model will also be presented
based on literature study to prove that the model structure
selection is sufficient for the developed EHA system
workbench. The ARX model was selected because of the
good result obtained as compared with other model
structures. The equation of ARX model is given as
A (z)y(k) = z-nB(z)u(k) + e (k) (1)
where
 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)
A (z) = 1 + al z-1 + a z z-z + ... + aka z-ka
B(z) = bo + b z-1 + b z z-z + ... + bka z-(kb-l)
1
A. Input Signal
The schematic diagram of the EHA system as shown in
Fig. 1 described the interface between the computer and the
hydraulic components. There are several types of input
signals that are commonly used in system identification
process such as Pseudo Random Binary Sequence (PRBS),
sinusoidal, multi-sine, step and many more.
Fig. 1. EHA system schematic
Multi-frequency sine signal have been used by
researchers [3,6] for the identification of EHA system. In
these studies, multi-sine signal with three different
frequencies is chosen as one of the inputs for system
identification process as shown in Fig. 2 and is given as
y = sine2n( O.OSt)t + sine2n(O.2)t
+ sine2n(1)t
30�--���--�----�
30 �--�" ----��--��--�
Time (second)
Fig. 2. Multi-sine input signal
Meanwhile Osman [20] has used continuous step input
signal to obtain position model of a pneumatic actuator
system. Thus, the second stimulus signal used to excite the
EHA system for parameter estimation is based on the
continuous step input signal as shown in Fig. 3. The
sampling time for the experiments is set to 20ms.
(2)
"k-o ------;-------;------;�--�--+.,, ------!,-----
- f,-----
- +.---+.-----o!
Time (second)
Fig. 3. Continuous step input signal
B. Model Validation
Basically, model validation can be conducted using two
approaches; graphical approach and statistical approach.
The graphical approach generally involves common sense in
deducing the model's goodness based on observations from
the output of the systems [2]. Block diagram for the
graphical approach validation is shown in Fig. 4. The
closed-loop output of the models obtained using multi-sine
and continuous step model are compared with the real plant
output to find the most precise model representation.
(3)
Fig. 4. Block diagram for graphical approach validation
The statistical approach is important in system
identification process for selecting a good model and
produces results that are statistically acceptable. Some
popular statistical approach validations are best fitting
criterion, histogram of residuals, correlation analysis and
root-mean-square-error (RMSE).
III. CONTROL STRATEGY
This study proposed the implementation of PFC on EHA
system due to the ability of the controller to emulate a first
order system without overshoot and ensure a smooth
transient response. In MPC, predictions of system behavior
can be made using state-space models and transfer function
model. The state-space approach is preferable in modern
control applications because it can handle systems with non­
zero initial conditions and can represent multiple-input,
multiple-output systems compactly. The state-space
prediction model [21] is given as
139
 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)

Xk+1 A These equivalences are called coincidence points. In this

Xk+Z AZ research, only one coincidence point is considered. Thus, at
Xk+3 A3 Xk + a single coincidence point and using Equation (7) and (9),
the control law can be determined by:
Xk+n An Yk+n = Wk+n = rk - (rk - Yk) 1jJi (10)
Xk Pxx (4)
B 0 0 0 Uk Hence, by substituting (8) into (10):
AB B 0 0 Uk+l
AZB AB Yk+n = PXk + HUk-l = rk - (rk - Yk) 1jJi (11)
B 0 Uk+Z
Assuming Uk+l = Uk, the control can be written as
An-1B An-ZB An-3 B B Uk+n-l
following
Hxx Ukl
(12)

Yk+l CA
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yk+Z CAZ
Yk+3 CA3 Xk + A. Modelldentification
The first step in model identification is to obtain input
Yk+n CAn and output signals of the EHA system. The multi-sine input
Yk P and the corresponding output as shown in Fig. 5 was
CB 0 0 0 Uk (5)
divided equally into two sets within 50s; the first set for
CAB CB 0 0 Uk+l
estimation and the second set for the validation process.
CAZB CAB B 0 Uk+Z
Three model orders were used for estimation; ARX221,
ARX331, and ARX441.
CAn-1B CAn-ZB CAn-3 B CB Uk+n-l
H Uk-l

Pxx, Hxx, P and H are matrices and vectors of the right

dimension. Thus, the state model, Xk and measured output
model,Yk are defined as i�t� o 5 10 15 l ?5 .
Valldaliondala

-EstimatiOOdata
r 35 40 45 50

iJ�
Xk = PxxXk + HxxUk-l (6)
Yk = PXk + HUk-l

The main concept in PFC is to realize closed-loop

Time (s)
behavior close to first order system with delay [22]. This is
achieved by placing the desired closed-loop dynamic into Fig. 5. Multi-sine Input and output signals

the reference trajectory. Given the actual set point is r, the

The estimated models were then simulated and compared
loop set point w is a first order lag which can be defined as
with the measured model output as shown in Fig. 6.
MaaSlI"ed and simulatEd modeloutp.Jt

(7)
'" :�\_"\

where 1jJ (0 < 1jJ < 1) is a tuning parameter setting the

desired closed-loop pole and Yk is the most recent E
.s o
N1�\, ;' . ' �
measured output. The 1jJ is related to the implied time
c
constant, Td and sample rate, T for the lag through o
Ow
·z

o
r: '--/\;.!\.�\
50

c.. \ r
-T \J - - -, ARX221: 73.25<>,{
1jJ= e Td (8) ...•... ARX331: 95.86°/9
...•... ARX441: 94.09o,{1
-Measured
PFC control law is obtained by using the degree of -150 '0-
25
--- ----!:c------+.�--____:;;__---C;---______:.
freedom (OOF) to enforce equality of the predictions and Time(s)
the reference trajectory at a number of points. By solving Fig. 6. Measured and simulated model output for multi-sine input signal
the control moves such that:
(9)

140
 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)

ARX331 was selected to represent the model for multi-sine The output responses in Fig. 9 clearly shows that the model
input as it has the highest best-fit value as tabulated in Table obtained using continuous step input signal gives almost
1. similar output as the real-time experiment, compared with
the model obtained using multi-sine input signal. Thus, the
Table I: Model order selection for multi-sine input signal model obtained using continuous step input signal is chosen
and is given as
Model Best fit FPE MSE
B CZ)
ARX221 73.25% 0.003669 0.003648 GCz) = 2
A2CZ)
ARX331 95.86% 0.00316 0.003131 (13)
0.05326z2 + 0.1695z - 0.1818
ARX44 I 94.09% 0.003024 0.002987
Z3 - 2.447z2 + 1.954z - 0.5069
The second type of input signal used to obtain the EHA - - Reference
-
model was continuous step. Fig. 7 shows the data collected
for estimation and validation. The first half of data collected 100
I .j
�-....-"""--""'''''
-1 '
Real-time
---'5imulation . cant. step input 51
was used for estimation using three model orders; ARX221, I .
Simulation - multi-sine input SI
,0
.. · ...

ARX331, and ARX441. E

E-
o:
:;::;
i�� �.
0
0
.. ..
'- - -� �
!'!'!'!"! ••••!!'!'!'
••••'!'!!'!' � ...
'iii \:-- n.:-y,--,.,....�
0
.. .... .....

0.. ,0 "

0
,f
0
"
Time(s)

(rJ1i/illm
o 2 4 Tim:(s)
Fig. 7. Continuous step input and output signals
8 10 12
B. Control Strategy
Fig. 9. Output of a step reference signal

In this section, EHA posltlon control using PFC and

PID-PSO are compared for step and multi-step reference
The models estimated were validated with the other half of
positions. Fig. 10 illustrated the simulation output responses
the data as shown in Fig. 8. ARX331 model was selected
of the step input for PFC algorithm and PID-PSO controller.
due to the highest best-fit value as shown in Table 2.
The target position is set to 100 mm for lOs.
Measu,edandslrrUated modeloulpUl

E
\110024
.s
g
0:

.�
0..
-21
1908
•••• ARX221: 86.9% 96 0:.6 0.8
........ ARX441: 89.7%
- ARX331: 94.67°;'
-Measured
_.•.

.,.D,!-----
;-----;-------;;-
,

Time(s)
--
--j;;-----'=�;;;;�
;;; ��co!.
°O�-7_-�-__;_-�-�5�-7_-�-__;_-�-�
1.2
Time (s)
Fig. 8. Measured and simulated model output for continuous step input Fig. 10. Step response simulation of PFC VS. PID
signal
The time response of the graph is tabulated in Table 3.
Table 2: Model order selection for continuous step input signal
The rise time and settling time for both PFC algorithm and
Model order Best fit FPE MSE PID-PSO controller show almost the same result.
ARX221 86.9% 0.04462 0.04361
Meanwhile for steady-state error, PID-PSO controller has
higher value compared to the PFC algorithm. The most
ARX331 94.67% 0.01959 0.0189
obvious difference between the controllers performance is in
ARX44 I 89.7% 0.01638 0.01561
term of overshoot value. PID-PSO controller has a much
higher of overshoot value as compared with the PFC
In order to select the best model to represent the EHA controller's output response. Fig. 11 illustrated the
system, graphical validation approach is used with the block simulation output response of the controllers when
diagram is shown in Fig. 4. Simulation outputs using both subjected to multi-step positioning. It can be clearly seen
models obtained were compared with real-time experiment. that the PID-PSO controller has more overshoot when the

141
 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)

actuator extends and retracts as compared with by using the The multistep signal was used to test the validity of the
PFC algorithm. controller over wide range input signal. Fig. 13 shows that
the PID-PSO controller has more overshoot when the
Table 3: Simulation time response of PFC and PID actuator extends and retracts as compared with the PFC
algorithm.
Specifications PFC PID
Reference
Rise time, T,(s) 0.4801 0.4800
!'
Settling Time, T,(s)
Steady State error, e,,(%)
0.6496
0.0023
0.6327
0.0129 \ . � /!
_

:�
• :
•
.:"
.1
: ...... PFC
...... ' PID-PSO

r ·I�\ ':r j \
Overshoot, OS (%) 8.2117x10'4 0.6991
Integral Absolute Error, IAE (Step) 35.37 35.55

-ReferEr1ce
� 60
0

;
!
�
i ':r-1 \ I 1\ o I \ I \\ ro ,
" ..·...... "'"

l !
7 72

�
74

.
. _
76

.. ur
r'--"'

::
\I I
---'PFC

..
_._" Plo-PSO

: : 83.5 :
._.....

i ......
°
',0 . 1 :
: ��.�� . .� ......... .
E
..s,oo 0
°
co

§ I Time (5)
� 80 ; Fig. 13. Multistep response experiment PFC vs. PID
� I
60
I
i
Fig. 14 shows the time response of PFC algorithm and
" Ii
PID-PSO controller for simulation and real-time
20 1
experiment. It can be clearly seen that there are some
°o�--7---�--�---7--�,�o--����- variations in time response between the simulation and
Time (5) experiment that have been obtained earlier.
Fig. 11. Multistep response simulation PFC vs. PID
1.4
The step response of real-time experiment for position 1.2
control of EHA using PFC algorithm and PID-PSO 1
controller is shown in Fig. 12. Table 4 tabulated the time 0.8
• PFe (simulation)
response result for the experiment. As expected from the 0.6
simulation conducted, the experiment result obtained shows 0.4 • PFe (experiment)
that the rise time and settling time for PFC algorithm and 0.2 • PID (simulation)
PID-PSO controller give almost the same result. The steady­ o
• PID (experiment)
state error for PFC is lower than the PID-PSO controller. In
term of overshoot, the PFC algorithm has much lower
overshoot percentage as compared with the PID-PSO
controller.

I
R,I",,,,,
---- PFC
_._ •• PID-PSO
Fig. 14. PFC and PID time response for simulation and experiment
'00 I I
I
I 104 These results could mainly cause by the linearization of
I
I the non-Iinearities during the modelling process. Even
E 102
.s I though minor differences were noted in the time response,
,. ,\ --
c: 60 i 100 --
}Il;
0
the simulation shows a close characteristic with the
:�
0..
iI 98 experimental works. Thus, the mathematical model obtained
"
0

,
I
I 96
I
is acceptable to represent the workbench in the performance
i j
'0 study.
94
iI 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
° ·I----�--�--�--�--�� 5 --�--�--�--�--�
0
Time (5) V. CONCLUSION
Fig. 12. Step response experiment of PFC vs. PID In this study, identification and control of EHA are
presented. Two types of inputs were used for the SI process.
Table 4: Time response experiment result
Using graphical approach, the model obtained using
Specifications PFC PID continuous step input signal is selected to represent the
Rise time, T,(s) 0.4680 0.4682 EHA system. Numerical simulation and real-time
Settling Time, T,(s) 0.6367 0.6269 experiment of EHA position control show the ability of PFC
Steady State error, e,,(%) 0.1096 0.1744
algorithm to give lower steady-state error and overshoot as
Overshoot, OS (%) 0.1457 1.1812
Integral Absolute Error, IAE (Step) 35.98 36.06
compared to PID-PSO.

142
 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IEEE IRIS20I5)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, and Ministry of
Education (MOE) Malaysia under FRGS Grant No.
R.J130000.7809.4F371, for their support.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Guan and S. Pan, "Nonlinear Adaptive Robust Control of
Single-Rod Electro-Hydraulic Actuator With Unknown
Nonlinear Parameters, " IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 200S, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 43�45.
[2] R. Ghazali, "Adaptive Discrete Sliding Mode Control of an
Electro-hydraulic Actuator System, " 2013.
[3] Zulfatman and M. F. Rahmat, "Application of Self-Tuning Fuzzy
PID Controller On Industrial Hydraulic Actuator Using System
Identification Approach, " flu. J. Smart Sens. Intell. Syst., vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 246-261, 2009.
[4] H. Yanada and K. Furuta, "Adaptive control of an
electrohydraulic servo system utilizing online estimate of its
natural frequency, " Mechatronics, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 337-343,
2007.
[5] S. M. Rozali, M. Rahmat, N. A. Wahab, and R. Ghazali, "PID
controller design for an industrial hydraulic actuator with servo
system, " IEEE Student Co'!ference on Research and
Development (SCOReD), 2010, pp. 21S-223.
[6] M. F. Rahmat, S. M. Rozali, N. A. Wahab, Zulfatman, and K.
Jusoff, "Modeling and Controller Design of an Electro-Hydraulic
Actuator System, " Am. J. Appl. Sci., vol. 7, no. S, pp. 1100-1 lOS,
2010.
[7] T. G. Ling, M. F. Rahmat, A. R. Husain, and R. Ghazali, "System
identification of electro-hydraulic actuator servo system, " IEEE
Int. CO'!f. Mechatronics (ICOM), pp. 1-7, May 2011.
[S] N. Ishak, M. Tajjudin, H. Ismail, M. Hezri Fazalul Rahiman, Y.
Md Sam, and R. Adnan, "PID Studies on Position Tracking
Control of an Electro-Hydraulic Actuator, " Int. 1. Control Sci.
Eng., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 120-126, 2012.
[9] T. G. Ling, M. F. Rahmat, and A. R. Husain, "A Comparative
Study of Linear ARX and Nonlinear ANFIS Modeling of an
Electro-Hydraulic Actuator System, " J. Teknol., vol. 5, pp. I-S,
2014.
[10] K. M. Elbayomy, Z. Jiao, and H. Zhang, "PID controller
optimization by GA and its performances on the electro­
hydraulic servo control system, " Chinese J. Aeronaut., vol. 21,
no. 4, pp. 37S-3S4, 200S.
143
[11] C. Guan and S. Pan, "Adaptive sliding mode control of electro­
hydraulic system with nonlinear unknown parameters, " COl1lrol
Eng. Pract., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1275-12S4, 200S.
[12] J. M. Lee, H. M. Kim, S. H. Park, and J. S. Kim, "A position
control of electro-hydraulic actuator systems using the adaptive
control scheme, " Asian Control Conference, 2009, vol. 7, pp. 21-
26.
[13] K. K. Ahn, D. Ngoc, C. Nam, and M. Jin, "Adaptive
Backstepping Control of an Electrohydraulic Actuator, "
IEEElASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2014, vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 9S7-995.
[14] A. R. Plummer and N. D. Vaughan, "Robust adaptive control for
hydraulic servosystems, " ASME 1. Dynam. Syst., Meas., Contr.,
vol. liS, no. 2, pp. 237-244, 1996.
[15] S. H. Cho and K. A. Edge, "Adaptive sliding mode tracking
control of hydraulic servosystems with unknown non-linear
friction and modelling error," Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I, .J.
Syst. Control Eng., vol. 214, no. February, pp. 247-257, 2000.
[16] Y. Lin, Y. Shi, and R. Burton, "Modeling and robust discrete­
time sliding-mode control design for a fluid power
electrohydraulic actuator (EHA) system, " IEEElASME Trans.
Mechatronics, vol. IS, pp. 1-10, 2013.
[17] J. Richalet and D. O'Donovan, "Elementary Predictive
Functional Control : A Tutorial, " International Symposium on
Advanced Control of Industrial Processes, 20 l l , pp. 306-313.
[IS] J. Y. Nagase, K. Hamada, T. Satoh, N. Saga, and K. Suzumori,
"Comparison between PFC and PID control system for tendon­
driven balloon actuator, " Industrial Electronics Co'!ference
(IECON), 2013, pp. 339S-3403.
[19] L. Ramli, Y. Sam, Z. Mohamed, M. K. Aripin, and M. F. Ismail,
"Composite Nonlinear Feedback Control with Multi-objective
Particle Swarm Optimization for Active Front Steering System, "
.J. Teknol., vol. 2, pp. 13-20, 2015.
[20] K. Osman, "Control Algorithm for Intelligent Pneumatic
Actuator Applied in Rehabilitation Device, " Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 2015.
[21] J. A. Rossiter, Model Based Predictive COl1lrol: A Practical
Approach, vol. 42. Florida: CRC Press LLC, 1995.
[22] J. Rossiter and R. Haber, "The Effect of Coincidence Horizon on
Predictive Functional Control, " Processes, vol. 3, pp. 25-45,
2015.