Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

1–15

System identification and robust position ! The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
control for electro-hydraulic servo system DOI: 10.1177/1077546317721417
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc
using hybrid model predictive control

Hai-Bo Yuan1, Hong-Cheol Na1,2 and Young-Bae Kim1

Abstract
This paper examined system identification using grey-box model estimation and position-tracking control for an
electro-hydraulic servo system (EHSS) using hybrid controller composed of proportional-integral control (PIC) and
model predictive control (MPC). The nonlinear EHSS model is represented by differential equations. We identify
model parameters and verify their accuracy against experimental data in MATLAB to evaluate the validity of this
mathematical model. To guarantee improved performance of EHSS and precision of cylinder position, we propose a
hybrid controller composed of PIC and MPC. The controller is designed using the Control Design and Simulation module
in the Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench (LabVIEW). A LabVIEW-based experimental rig is
developed to apply the proposed controller in real time. Then, the validity and performance superiority of the hybrid
controller were confirmed by comparing them with the MPC and PIC results. Results of real-life experiments show
improved robustness and dynamic and static properties of EHSS.

Keywords
Electro-hydraulic servo system, grey-box system identification, model predictive control, real-time position control,
MATLAB, Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench

In previous studies, despite high nonlinearity of EHSS,

1. Introduction
An electro-hydraulic servo system (EHSS) mainly con-
sists of power supply unit, servo valve, double-ended
hydraulic cylinder, position and force sensors, and
other auxiliary system parts. EHSS is widely used in
the industry because of its high-speed power/mass
ratio, fast response, and high stiffness. Hydraulic fluid
can act as a heat exchanger to remove heat generated
in the system (Merritt, 1967). EHSS exhibits some
parametric uncertainties and uncertain nonlinearities
(Merritt, 1967; Yao et al., 2000). Parametric variations
include the hydraulic bulk modulus, pressure-flow
characteristics, and oil temperature in different working
conditions (Guo et al., 2016). Uncertain nonlinearities
include effect of the compressibility, friction, internal
leakage, and slight dead zone in servo valve, leakage
in actuator, and time delay caused by the interaction of
actuator and external load (Kalyoncu and Haydim,
2009). For position control, nonlinearity becomes
especially significant when the actuator operates with
large displacement command.
many researchers used linear control methods, such as
pole placement (Lim, 1997; Plummer and Vaughan,
1997) and classical feedback control (Elbayomy et al.,
2008), around an operating point. However, traditional
control theory does not track the desired reference
satisfactorily because of the parametric uncertainties
and nonlinearities in the system, thus limiting linear
controller ability. To improve control precision of actu-
ator position, some nonlinear controllers were examined.
An optimal tuning nonlinear proportional-integral-deri-
vative (PID) controller was introduced in Liu and Daley
(2009), and optimal parameters were provided using an
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chonnam National University,
Gwangju, Republic of Korea
2
JKS Co., Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Received: 31 October 2016; accepted: 15 June 2017
Corresponding author:
Young-Bae Kim, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chonnam
National University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Email: ybkim@chonnam.ac.kr
2 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
estimated plant model with inverse of dead zone. Other
authors (Wos and Dindorf, 2013; Yao et al., 2000) pro-
posed an adaptive robust controller for position control
of the EHSS, considering not only the nonlinearities but
also effects of parameter variations. The Lyapunov-based
nonlinear controller using the back-stepping design strat-
egy was suggested by Sirouspour and Salcudean (2000),
and the predictive control strategy was applied by Balau
et al. (2011) to reduce effects of delay on control perform-
ance. Kim et al. (2011) used quantitative feedback theory
to optimize the control results with parameter uncertain-
ties. Not only nonlinear and linear controllers but also
some hybrid controllers were used to optimize actuator
position control. Kalyoncu and Haydim (2009) developed
nonlinear hybrid controller consisting of the fuzzy con-
troller and PID controller and obtained good tracking
performance. Guo et al. (2015) proposed a nonlinear cas-
cade controller consisting of sliding model control and
back-stepping technique. In consideration of external dis-
turbance, the proposed controller performed excellently.
Li and Xiong (2008) designed a combination of foreword
model controller and feedback fuzzy controller. Faced
with system nonlinearities, many researchers considered
improving the control result by compensating for friction
(Alleyne and Liu, 2000; Tafazoli et al., 2002), time delay
(Balau et al. 2011; Qian et al., 2014), leakage (Kalyoncu
and Haydim, 2009), and dead zone (Liu and Daley, 2009)
in the servo valve. Some scientists (Guo et al., 2015; Wos
and Dindorf, 2013) constructed disturbance observer to
optimize position control.
Zad et al. (2016) proposed a theory of controlling the
model predictive control (MPC) used in EHSS and con-
structed a simulation model. Researchers did not present
experimental data to verify whether the constructed simu-
lation model worked well. Marusak and Kuntanapreeda
(2011) introduced constrained MPC for force control of
EHSS and emphasized importance of constraints in con-
troller design. Despite the simplicity, practicality, and
robustness of the MPC controller, only few researchers
focused on using MPC on EHSS, as examining MPC is
challenging.
In the present paper, a hybrid controller consisting
of proportional-integral control (PIC) and MPC is
investigated to improve tracking performance of actu-
ators. First, a state-space EHSS model is developed,
and model accuracy is verified against experimental
data. Second, the proposed controller design is verified
in the Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering
Workbench (LabVIEW) environment. Later, a real-
time hybrid controller is used to optimize tracking pre-
cision of actuator position. This research contributes in
developing a hybrid controller based on a reasonable
nonlinear state-space model of EHSS and in realizing
controller design in LabVIEW for actuator position
control. Finally, the control result of the experiment
is discussed by comparing hybrid controller results
with those of MPC and PIC.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
2 describes a detailed nonlinear state-space model and
grey-box model identification using experimental data
in MATLAB. In section 3, a hybrid controller design is
derived, and controller parameters are adjusted
through simulation in LabVIEW. In section 4, a pro-
posed controller for position control is implemented on
a real-time platform, and experimental results are ana-
lyzed. Finally, section 5 summarizes the key points of
this paper.
2. Nonlinear model and system
identification of EHSS
The EHSS is difficult to control because of the nonlinear-
ity and complexity of its mathematical models. A simpli-
fied diagram of this system is depicted in Figure 1.
2.1. Nonlinear state-space model of EHSS
Before establishing a mathematical model of the EHSS,
we formulate several assumptions, which are as follows
(Qian et al., 2014):
1. Fluid properties (density, bulk modulus, etc.) are
constant.
2. Servo valve is not saturated.
3. In pipelines and servo valve, oil volumes are not
considered.
4. Time delay and friction force can be modeled as
negative damping.
With the above assumptions, we derive mathematical
models of servo valve, actuator cylinder, and test load.
2.1.1. Servo valve model. In this paper, the servo valve
chosen is a closed-centred, four-way sliding spool valve
with symmetric orifice containing a dead zone. However,
this design is simple and rugged to achieve dependable,
long-life operation, especially in preventing leakage losses,
which increase with wear and tear. According to manu-
facturers’ datasheet information, we use a first-order
model to describe dynamics of this servo valve (valve
type G761-3005 of MOOG), which can provide the high
quality and high operational bandwidth of a used valve
(Yao et al., 2000). Related equation is as follows:
1 kv
x_v ¼  xv þ u ð1Þ
 
where xv is spool displacement,  is time constant of
servo valve, kv is direct current gain of servo valve, and
u is input voltage.
Yuan et al. 3

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the electro-hydraulic servo system.

The following equation expresses orifice flow equa- equivalent damping of time delay), and k is the spring
tion in servo valve: constant.
Combining the above equations of each sub-system,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ps  sgnðxv ÞPL we obtain an open-loop nonlinear state-space equation
QL ¼ Cd !xv ð2Þ of the EHSS:

x_1 ¼ x2
where QL is load flow, Cd is discharge coefficient, ! is k b A
x_2 ¼  x1  x2 þ x3  g
spool valve area gradient, Ps is supply pressure, PL is m m m
load pressure, and  is fluid mass density. 4Ae 4Ctm e 4Cd e ! pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x_3 ¼  x2  x3 þ pffiffiffi Ps  x3 sgnðx4 Þ  x4
Vt Vt Vt 
2.1.2. Hydraulic cylinder model. Flow-pressure continuous 1 kv
x_4 ¼  x4 þ u
equation describes properties of the cylinder as follows:  
ð5Þ
Vt _
PL ¼ Ax_  Ctm PL þ QL ð3Þ
4e where x1 is actuator piston position, x2 is actuator
piston velocity, x3 is load pressure, and x4 is spool dis-
where Vt is total actuator volume, e is effective bulk placement in servo valve.
modulus, A is actuator ram area, Ctm is total coefficient
of leakage.
2.2. Grey-box model identification
2.1.3. Test load model. In our experiment, we do not con- In the previous section, we obtained a fourth-order
sider calculation of friction, which can influence the nonlinear state-space model of EHSS using known
dynamics of actuator. For simplicity, we consider fric- physical laws and hydraulic theories. That is, we have
tion as part of damping. Related equation is as follows: good information about characteristics of EHSS.
However, we cannot ascertain values of some param-
PL A ¼ m x€ þbx_ þ kx þ mg ð4Þ eters, without which we could not sufficiently describe
EHSS dynamics. Thus, this paper presents a system
where the m is mass of actuator rod and all moving identification method called nonlinear grey-box model
parts, b is damping coefficient of system (including identification to estimate parameters of an existing
4 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

mathematical model using input and output data col- Some parameters can be clustered together to sim-
lected from the experiment. plify identification. The new state-space model is pre-
For the obtained nonlinear state-space model, struc- sented as follows:
ture and materials have some parameters that are
known or can be measured. However, most of them x_1 ¼ x2
are unknown. Thus, for grey-box model identification, x_2 ¼ a1 x1  a2 x2 þ a3 x3  g
pre-estimation should be performed to determine initial pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
x_3 ¼ a4 x2  a5 x3 þ a6 Ps  x3 sgnðx4 Þ  x4
values of each unknown parameter according to other
papers (Guo et al., 2016; Kaddissi et al., 2007; Kim x_4 ¼  1 x4 þ a7 u
et al., 2011; Maneetham and Afzulpurkar, 2010;
Sirouspour and Salcudean, 2000), though some esti- where, a1 ¼ mk , a2 ¼ mb , a3 ¼ m
A
, a4 ¼ 4A 4Ctm e
Vt , a5 ¼ Vt ,
e

mated parameters have large errors. Tables 1–3 list all

a6 ¼ 4C effiffi! kv
Vt  , a7 ¼ 
dp
parameters.
Table 4 lists values of simplified parameters.
For time-domain testing input signal, we select one
Table 1. Physical parameters obtained from manufacturers’
chirp signal with frequency range of 0–20 Hz and 5 mm
catalogues.
amplitude as excitation. Figure 2 presents testing
Parameters Unit Description Value signal and response of open-loop system. As shown in
Figure 2, scales are different from practical unit, as
Ps Pa Supply pressure 1e7
input signal acts as voltage to the servo valve amplifier,
 s Time constant of the servo valve 0.067
and 7.5-scale is identified between real distance and
input voltage (u) to amplifier.
After identifying ordinary differential equations with
Table 2. Calculated physical parameters of the electro-hydraulic unknown parameters, we construct nonlinear grey-box
servo system. modeling of EHSS using System Identification ToolTM
commands in MATLAB. Output of system is simulated
Parameters Unit Description Value using Runge–Kutta 45 solver with adaptive step length
m kg Mass of the actuator 20 adjustment: absolute and relative error tolerances
rod and all moving parts are 1e-6 and 1e-5, respectively. To estimate model par-
A m2 Actuator ram area 1.25664e-3 ameters, the search method utilized is Trust-Region
Cd – Discharge coefficient 0.62 Reflective Newton method of nonlinear least-squares.
! – Spool valve area gradient 0.03399 In the method, cost is sum of squares of errors between
measured and simulated outputs. After several iter-
ations, we obtain optimal parameters fitting 96.34%
of real-time response data; the mean squared error is
Table 3. Pre-estimated parameters from other researches. 1.159e-06, as shown in Figure 3. Thus, we ensure that
obtained parameters can describe the system character-
Parameters Unit Description Value istics well.
b N  s=m Damping coefficient 2500 Table 5 presents parameters estimated from the
k N=m Spring constant 0 program.
e N=m2 Effective bulk modulus 5e8
To verify the veracity of the estimated mathematical
model, we use one square wave signal with 15 mm amp-
Ctm m4  s=kg Total coefficient of leakage 1.5e-11
litude and 3 Hz frequency to test real system and compare
 kg=m3 Fluid mass density 820
results with those of simulation model constructed in
kv m=v Direct current gain 0.0265e-4 MATLAB/Simulink. In Figure 4 (a) and (b) respectively
of the servo valve
we display the testing signal and comparison results.
Note: a in the operation, the cylinder is not always touching the spring; As indicated by the comparison result, large
hence, we set the value of k to 0 first. errors are not found between response of simulation

Table 4. The simplified pre-estimated parameters.

Parameters a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7

Pre-estimated values 0 125 6.02832e-5 1.25664e10 150 7.359e9 1.65625e-4

Yuan et al. 5

Figure 2. (a) Test signal for system identification; (b) real-time response.

Figure 3. Grey-box system identification result.

Table 5. The estimated parameters.

Parameters a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7

Estimated values 21.136 124.883 2.4107e-5 1.25664e10 149.898 7.359e9 0.0331967

model and actual system. Therefore, we can ascertain
that this model is accurate in predicting real system
behaviors.
3. Controller design
3.1. PI controller design
In this paper, the closed-loop Ziegler–Nichols PID
tuning method (Ziegler and Nichols, 1942) is utilized
to adjust proportional integral (PI) controller. And the
selected operating point is controlling actuator at 5 mm.
The tuning method is performed by setting the integral
and derivative gains to zero. Proportional gain, KP is
then increased (from zero) until it reaches ultimate gain
KPu , at which output of control loop has stable and
consistent oscillations. We then measure the ultimate
period Pu . Through experiment, tuning step response
is represented by Figure 5, from which ultimate gain
(KPu ¼ 4:12) and ultimate period (Pu ¼ 0:08s) are
obtained. Using tuning rules listed in Table 6, we
acquire controller parameters. PI controller behaves
better than another two controllers, and values of Kp
(proportional gain) and Ti (integral time) are 1.854 and
6 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Figure 4. (a) Test signal; (b) comparison of the real-time and simulation response.

Figure 5. Tuning step response of real system.

Table 6. Tuning rules of closed loop Ziegler–Nichols method.

Parameters Kp Ti Td

P 0.5 KPu 1 0
PI 0.45 KPu Pu =1:2 0
PID 0.6 KPu Pu =2 Pu =8

0.0667s, respectively. We then conclude the acceptable

stability tuned by the closed loop Ziegler–Nichols PID
tuning method and step responses as illustrated by
Figure 6.
3.2. Introduction of MPC
Model predictive control is a robust controller com-
monly used in control engineering, and it is widely stu-
died by the industrial and academic communities.
Many successful applications were realized simply and
efficiently because of its simplicity, richness, and
Figure 6. Step response of real system with tuned propor-
tional-integral control (PIC).
practicality. Figure 7 illustrates the model structure
used in the MPC controller.
The objective of the MPC is to create noise-free
plant output (yp ) to track reference (R) by manipulat-
ing signals (manipulated variable (uO )) in the plant.
Yuan et al.
Figure 7. Basic structure of model predictive controller.
Figure 8. The state of model predictive control at instant
k þ 1.
The controller also deals with measured and unmeas-
ured disturbance. To better track (R) signal, measured
noise (electrical noise, sampling errors, etc.) should be
considered to estimate the yp , and MPC provides feed-
forward compensation for measured and unmeasured
disturbances. According to the above basic structure,
the working process of MPC should be understood.
Normally, MPC relies on one linear-time-invariant,
discrete-time, state-space system model to predict
future response of the system. Horizons, including
prediction horizon (P) and control horizon (M), are
important parts of the definition of MPC. P is
number of samples to predict the plant output, and
M specifies number of samples to affect the medium
voltage. Value of M must be less than that of P. As
shown in Figure 8, MPC at time k predicts plant output
for time k þ P to track R. In this process, uO is used to
predict plant output for time k þ 1 and to minimize cost
function JðkÞ.
JðkÞ is nonlinear quadratic function with constraints
specified by Equations (8)–(10). For scalar system, JðkÞ
is represented by Equation (7).
X
P X
M1
JðkÞ ¼ q  ½y^ðk þ ijkÞ  Rðk þ ijkÞ2 þ r  ½uO ðk þ ijkÞ2
i¼1 i¼0
ð7Þ
7
ymin  y^ ðk þ ijkÞ  ymax ð8Þ
uO min  uO ðk þ ijkÞ  uO max ð9Þ
uO min  uO ðk þ ijkÞ  uO max ð10Þ
where
P is the prediction horizon
M is the control horizon
k is the discrete time
i is the index along the prediction horizon
q is the output error weighting
r is the manipulated variable change weighting
y^ ðk þ ijkÞ is the predicted plant output at time k þ i
Rðk þ ijkÞ is the plant output reference at time k þ i
uO ðk þ ijkÞ is the predicted optimal manipulated
variable at time k þ i
uO ðk þ ijkÞ is the predicted rate of change in
manipulated variable at time k þ i
The constraints specified in the manipulated variable
and plant output are set to prevent the overshoot of
the performance. The MPC controller considers
all these constraints and calculates a sequence of
future manipulated variables to minimize the cost
function.
3.3. MPC and hybrid controller design
Applying MPC, a discrete-time state-space mathemat-
ical model is needed for MPC design. Other parameters
including sampling time, prediction horizon (P), con-
trol horizon (M), output error weighting (q), and
manipulated variable change weighting (r) also play
important roles in excellent control performance.
Sampling time selected in this manuscript is 0.01 sec-
onds, which is short enough to decrease response
time. Ample prediction horizon (P) is needed to guar-
antee the closed-loop stability of control system, but
the larger prediction may cause no further increment
on control result. Control horizon (M) and manipu-
lated variable change weighting (r) can both affect
how aggressive or conservative the control performance
8 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

is. In addition, the larger control horizon (M) number

will increase the computational load. Output error
weighting (q) dictates the accuracy of control result
and has a significant effect on forcing output to track
set point.
Garriga JL and Soroush M (2010) reviewed tuning
methods for different kinds of MPC, in which they com-
pared with dynamic matrix control (DMC) and general-
ized predictive control (GPC). However, there are
limited papers studying the explicit tuning algorithm
on the general state-space representation of MPC. Lee
JH and Yu ZH (1994) studied tuning rules about general
state-space representation MPC, and provided tuning Figure 9. Simulation results of model predictive control (P ¼ 7,
principle to obtain nominal stability, then to detune M ¼ 1, q¼ 1:5, r¼ 1).
robust performance for infinite horizon MPC. Zhang
and Li (2007) focused on performance assessment of
MPC, and an MPC-achievable benchmark was pro- in which,
posed on subspace identification. They used trade-off
2 3
curves to find potential benefit by tuning weighting par- 0:1758 0:001673 324:1 7:803e  9
ameters and by a different combination of P and M in 6 7:916e  5 0:9998 5:862 6:479e  11 7
6 7
MPC-achievable benchmark, then optimal horizon A¼6 7
40 0 0:04394 0 5
numbers can be selected. Nagrath et al. (2000) intro- 4:068 7:138e5 5:005e9 0:184
duced finite horizon MPC based on state-space repre- 2 3
25:95
sentation and used default value of P (10) and fixed 6 0:1537 7
value of manipulated variable change weighting r (1) 6 7
B¼6 7
to tune a continuous-stirred tank reactor with excellent 4 0:01354 5
results. Edouard et al. (2005) adopted a state-space rep- 7:503e7
 
resentation MPC controller to catalytic reverse flow C¼ 0 1 0 0
reactor, in which the authors set M to 1 to induce the D¼0
computational burden of the constrained optimization
problem. In summary the key of MPC tuning is to Next, we develop a simulation model using the
develop one appropriate process model. Control Design and Simulation Module in LabVIEW
Generally speaking, a state-space representation to test the control method. Nevertheless, in the simula-
structure typically requires offline simulation and tion the controlled position cannot track the desired
some trial and error tuning method which is cumber- set-point and there exists a small gap. The optimal
some because of the overlapping effect of each param- simulation result is represented by Figure 9 with the
eter setting. Based on the previous experience on MPC, tuned parameters.
the present research considers the function of P and q
mainly to guarantee the stability and robustness of the 3.3.2. Hybrid controller. For highly nonlinear EHSS, con-
control action. With default value of M equaling to 1, sidering that linearizing the nonlinear model at initial
small computational load is guaranteed. Setting the condition is unsuitable for MPC controller design, we
fixed value of r (1) meets trade-off between robust suggest initially using typical PI controller (PIC) which
and aggressive control performance which is the same is commonly used for position control of hydraulic sys-
situation to M. If the robustness cannot be realized, we tems in industries, to make actuator piston approxi-
will detune M and r and all these works will be done in mately track desired trajectories. Then, we apply
simulation. MPC to improve the dynamic and static performances
of EHSS. That is, MPC works as outer controller and
3.3.1. MPC. For MPC application in LabVIEW, one the traditional controller (PIC) acts as inner controller.
linear discrete-time state-space mathematical model is PIC adjusts u in response to change between inner
obtained using Linear Analysis Tool in MATLAB, reference input and plant output, and outer controller
which is represented by Equation (11). MPC predicts and adjusts uO , which is reference
input to inner control loop. For the whole system, non-
linear plant with control of PIC can be treated as new
x_ ðk þ 1Þ ¼ AxðkÞ þ BuðkÞ plant. Figure 10 presents a diagram of the hybrid
ð11Þ
yðkÞ ¼ CxðkÞ þ DuðkÞ controller.
Yuan et al. 9

Figure 10. The diagram of the hybrid controller.

Figure 11. Simulation results of hybrid controller: (a) tuning P with M ¼ q ¼ r ¼ 1; (b) tuning q with P ¼ 12, M ¼ 1, r ¼ 1.

The nominal linearized discrete-time state-space
model is indicated by Equation (12)
x_ ðk þ 1Þ ¼ A1 xðkÞ þ B1 uo ðkÞ
ð12Þ
yðkÞ ¼ C1 xðkÞ þ D1 uo ðkÞ
response cannot be obtained after q tuning. Through the
comparison of simulation result, the optimum final value
of P and q is 12 and 0.02 respectively. We can see from
that the simulation result which is acceptable, hence we
do not need to detune M and r.

2 3 2 3
0:1404 47:5687 548:3871 1:2708e  8 651:2788 47:5736
6 7 6 7
6 0:00023 0:7106 5:3036 4:7657e  11 4:1426 7 6 0:2892 7
6 7 6 7
A1 ¼ 6
6 5:8674e  6 0:0235 0:0867 2:0444e  12 0:3134 7 7; B1 ¼ 6
6 0:0235 7
7
6 7 6 7
4 4:6525e6 8:6678e7 7:994e9 0:1536 5:8442e8 5 4 8:7457e7 5
6:2103e  6 0:0091 0:0337 6:8095e  13 0:987 0:0091
 
C1 ¼ 0 1 0 0 0 ; D1 ¼ 0

With the fixed values of M and r (both equaling to 1),
we initially set q to 1 and tune P value. After acquiring
the stable performance in simulation, then we adjust the
optimal response by tuning q value with the obtained P.
The tuning result is represented by Figure 11 (a) and (b).
During the simulation process, we find that even though
a small P value can guarantee fast response, smooth step
Piston position range depends on manufactory, and
after measurement of the real hydraulic system, we
obtain piston position range of –75 mm to 60 mm.
Considering that spring is present in the system,
under 10 mm, piston can move without elastic spring
force, and maximum amplitude of piston position is
limited to 60 mm, at which point spring shows
10
maximum compression. As for uO , which is a reference
input to inner control loop in hybrid controller, we use
input voltage range of servo valve to set its constraints.
Plant output is also constrained by real position range.
The constraints of the controller are
 10 V  uO ðk þ ijkÞ  8 V
 0:075 m  y^ðk þ ijkÞ  0:060 m
4. Simulations and experimental results
LabVIEW is used to design the controller and project
for the experiment. LabVIEW contains variety of tools
for simulation, data acquisition, instrument control,
measurement analysis, and data presentation. This pro-
gram can easily deal with inputs, outputs, and controller
design in real time using graphic user interface modules.
In this paper, the NI PXI system implements data meas-
urement and controller designing parts; system type is
NI PXIe-1062Q. Position sensor of linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT) is Series 210 from
Trans-Tek Co., USA, and hydraulic power unit is
from JKS Co., Korea with 100 bars pressure, 5 H.P.,
Figure 12. Real-time facility of the electro-hydraulic servo system.
Figure 13. Comparison of the experimental and simulation control results for sinusoidal input: (a) model predictive control; (b)
hybrid controller.
Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
and 1200 rpm specification. Also, Intel E7300 with
2.67 GHz clock speed is used for the central processing
unit. Figure 12 illustrates the real facility of present study.
For experiments using real-time MPC, sampling
time should be equal to the model discrete sampling
time, and time loop is necessary to guarantee success
of the experiment. We design the MPC real-time con-
troller using obtained parameters from simulation in
the NI-PXI system and test the system using set-point
profile. In the experiment, PIC, MPC and hybrid con-
troller are used to control the system. For stability and
robustness verification of the proposed controllers, we
test EHSS under three different dynamical conditions.
4.1. Controlling actuator position at 5 mm
In the present research, we design the PI controller, MPC
and hybrid controller at operating point of 5 mm, hence
we use sinusoidal signal with 1 Hz frequency and 5 mm
amplitude to detect system tracking ability with proposed
controllers. Figure 13 (a) and (b) present identical simu-
lation and experimental results obtained using MPC and
the hybrid controller respectively. Figure 14 illustrates
Yuan et al.
experimental control results of three proposed control-
lers. PIC tracks sinusoidal signal with small overshoot
and there is a tiny phase lags existing in control response
of hybrid controller. The root-mean- square errors
(RMSEs) of proposed PIC, MPC and hybrid controller
are 0.2771, 0.5646 and 0.5201 respectively. This result
indicates that PIC and hybrid controller can track
desired signal well, while MPC controller does not
realize good performance, which is the same as simula-
tion result.
4.2. Controlling different actuator positions
For different actuator positions, we use random signal
with position range from -60 mm to 60 mm to verify
Figure 14. Experimental control results of proportional-integral control (PIC), model predictive control (MPC) and hybrid
controller.
Figure 15. Comparison of the experimental and simulation control results for random input: (a) model predictive control; (b) hybrid
controller.
11
stability and robustness of proposed controllers (when
using random signal to test positions, spring is not yet
installed into system). For different position changes,
EHSS shows nonlinear behaviors because of friction,
internal leakage, and oil compressibility. Hence, a big
challenge for controllers is realizing robust control in
wide position range. Figure 15 (a) and (b) present con-
trol results of MPC and hybrid controller in simulation
and real time, which indicate that simulation result can
provide correct information for experimental response.
Figure 16 illustrates comparison of control perform-
ance between PIC, MPC and hybrid controller. PIC
can follow reference signal but with large overshoot,
undershoot, and oscillations. And MPC cannot track
the desired input reference. In addition, PIC and hybrid
12 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Figure 16. Experimental control results of proportional-integral control (PIC), model predictive control (MPC) and hybrid
controller.

Figure 17. The input voltage u controlled by proportional-integral control (PIC) and hybrid controller.

controller have RMSEs of 7.6251 and 4.5971, respect-
ively. Controlling large position variations, hybrid con-
troller shows more stable and robust behaviors than
another two controllers.
Figure 17 shows u variations controlled by PIC and
hybrid controller, clearly illustrating that PIC performs
badly for controlled voltage with large overshoot,
undershoot, and oscillations. For hybrid controller, in
outer control loop, MPC adjusts new reference input
signal to inner control loop based on original reference
input and plant output, as illustrated in Figure 18.
Controlled voltage in inner control loop is much
smoother and smaller, resulting in better plant output.
4.3. Controlling the fixed actuator position
at 5 mm in different operating
temperature (OT)
For EHSS, temperature plays a significant role in con-
trolling precise position. Oil properties, such as density
and compressibility, change significantly with vari-
ations in OT, causing uncertainty in systems. In present
Yuan et al. 13

Figure 18. The manipulated variable uO controlled by model predictive control in hybrid controller.

Figure 19. Experimental results of proportional-integral control (PIC) and hybrid controller in different operating temperature
(OT): (a) PIC; (b) hybrid controller.

Table 7. RMSEs of step responses in different OT. control results of PIC and hybrid controller. Table 7
summarizes RMSE from two control methods. We con-
Proportional-integral Hybrid
clude that both controllers have robust control per-
Temperature control controller
formance in different OT, and hybrid controller
Operating temperature shows more stable behavior than PIC as shown by pre-
(OT) ¼ 25 C 0.8602 0.5809 sented figures and tables in this paper.
OT ¼ 30 C 0.8582 0.5780
OT ¼ 35 C 0.8644 0.5798
5. Conclusions
OT ¼ 40 C 0.8498 0.5782
Based on EHSS, this research examines EHSS
modeling, system identification, controller design, and
real-time control implementation. First, nonlinear
research, 30 C normal temperature is utilized for con- state-space model of EHSS is derived by same mathem-
troller design and actual experiments. To verify robust- atical equation for each sub-system with some assump-
ness and stability of designed controllers (PIC and tions, and simulation model is created in MATLAB/
hybrid controller), we test system step response with Simulink. Grey-box system identification method is
5 mm amplitude under different OTs. Figure 19 shows introduced to ascertain parameter values existing in
14
mathematical model, and validity of model is verified
against experimental data. Second, we design hybrid
controller consisting of PIC and MPC. Nonlinear
system model controlled by PIC is treated as new
plant model and linearized using Linear Analysis
Tool in MATLAB. Then, based on new state-space
model, MPC is applied as outer controller to improve
control result. Simulation and controller design are rea-
lized in LabVIEW environment. In experiments, both
PIC and hybrid controller manifest robust control per-
formance, while hybrid controller shows much stable
behaviors than PIC in different operating condition.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported in part by the National
Research Foundation of Korea (15H1C1A1035825 and
15R1A4A1041746) and in part by Korea Electric Power
Cooperation (KEPCO: 16-07).
References
Alleyne A and Liu R (2000) A simplified approach to force
control for electro-hydraulic systems. Control Engineering
Practice 8(12): 1347–1356.
Balau AE, Caruntu CF and Lazar C (2011) Simulation and
control of an electro-hydraulic actuated clutch. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 25(6): 1911–1922.
Edouard D, Dufour P and Hammouri H (2005) Observer
based multivariable control of a catalytic reverse flow
reactor: Comparison between LQR and MPC approaches.
Computers & chemical engineering 29(4): 851–865.
Elbayomy KM, Jiao Z and Zhang H (2008) PID controller
optimization by GA and its performances on the electro-
hydraulic servo control system. Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics 21(4): 378–384.
Garriga JL and Soroush M (2010) Model predictive control
tuning methods: A review. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 49(8): 3505–3515.
Guo K, Wei J, Fang J, et al. (2015) Position tracking control
of electro-hydraulic single-rod actuator based on an
extended disturbance observer. Mechatronics 27(1): 47–56.
Guo Q, Sun P, Yin J, et al. (2016) Parametric adaptive esti-
mation and backstepping control of electro-hydraulic
actuator with delayed memory filter. ISA Transactions
62: 202–214.
Kaddissi C, Kenne JP and Saad M (2007) Identification and
real-time control of an electrohydraulic servo system based
on nonlinear backstepping. IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics 12(1): 12–22.
Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Kalyoncu M and Haydim M (2009) Mathematical modeling
and fuzzy logic based position control of an electrohydrau-
lic servosystem with internal leakage. Mechatronics 19(6):
847–858.
Kim JW, Xuan DJ and Kim YB (2011) Robust control appli-
cation for a three-axis road simulator. Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology 35(1): 221–231.
Lee JH and Yu ZH (1994) Tuning of model predictive con-
trollers for robust performance. Computers & Chemical
engineering 18 (1): 15–37.
Li H and Xiong S (2008) Fuzzy internal model control for
electro-hydraulic servo systems. In: 27th Chinese Control
Conference, 16–18 July 2008, pp.372–376. IEEE.
Lim TJ (1997) Pole placement control of an electrohydraulic
servo motor. In: Power Electronics and Drive Systems,
1997. Proceedings of the Seond International Conference
on Power Electronics and Drive Systems, 26–29 May
1997. IEEE, pp.350–356.
Liu GP and Daley S (2009) Optimal-tuning nonlinear PID
control of hydraulic systems. Control Engineering Practice
8(9): 1045–1053.
Maneetham D and Afzulpurkar N (2010) Modeling, simula-
tion and control of high speed nonlinear hydraulic servo
system. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and
Intelligent Systems 4(1): 94–103.
Marusak PM and Kuntanapreeda S (2011) Constrained
model predictive force control of an electrohydraulic actu-
ator. Control Engineering Practice 19(1): 62–73.
Merritt HE (1967) Hydraulic control systems. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Nagrath D, Prasad V, Bequette BW, et al. (2000) Model pre-
dictive control of open-loop unstable cascade systems. In:
Proceedings of the 2000 American Control Conference,
28–30 June 2000. IEEE, pp.3747–3752.
Plummer AR and Vaughan ND (1997) Decoupling pole-pla-
cement control, with application to a multi-channel elec-
tro-hydraulic servosystem. Control Engineering Practice
5(3): 313–323.
Qian Y, Ou G, Maghareh A, et al. (2014) Parametric identi-
fication of a servo hydraulic actuator for real-time hybrid
simulation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
48(1): 260–273.
Sirouspour MR and Salcudean SE (2000) On the nonlinear
control of hydraulic servo-systems. In: Proceedings 2000
ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia
Proceedings, 24–28 April 2000. IEEE, pp. 1276–1282.
Tafazoli S, de Silva CW and Lawrence PD (2002) Tracking
control of an electrohydraulic manipulator in the presence
of friction. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology 6(3): 401–411.
Wos P and Dindorf R (2013) Adaptive control of the electro-
hydraulic servo-system with external disturbances. Asian
Journal of Control 15(4): 1065–1080.
Yao B, Bu F, Reedy J, et al. (2000) Adaptive robust motion
control of single-rod hydraulic actuators: theory and
experiments. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics
5(1): 79–91.
Yuan et al. 15

Zad HS, Ulasyar A and Zohaib A (2016) Robust model pre- Zhang Q and Li S (2007) Enhanced performance assessment
dictive position control of direct drive electro-hydraulic servo of subspace model-based predictive controller with param-
system. In: 2016 International Conference on Intelligent eters tuning. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
Systems Engineering (ICISE). IEEE, pp.100–104. 85(4): 537–548.
Ziegler JG and Nichols NB (1942) Optimum settings for
automatic controller. Transactions of the American Socity
of the Mechanical Engineers 64(11): 759–765.