See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4362486

Subspace technique for identification of hybrid complex systems.

Conference Paper · July 2008

DOI: 10.1109/MED.2008.4602098 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

5 76

4 authors, including:

Lala Rajaoarisoa Nacer Kouider M'Sirdi

IMT Nord Europe Aix-Marseille Université
86 PUBLICATIONS   304 CITATIONS    282 PUBLICATIONS   2,076 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Naamane Aziz

97 PUBLICATIONS   491 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Projet PFC et SASV View project

control of photovoltaic systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nacer Kouider M'Sirdi on 08 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Subspace technique for identification of hybrid complex systems.
Lala H. Rajaoarisoa1 , Nacer K. M’sirdi1 , El-Kebir Boukas2 and Aziz Naamane1
1 Systems and Sciences Laboratory UMR6168, Domaine Universitaire de Saint-Jerôme

Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen 13397 MARSEILLE CEDEX 20

lala.rajaoarisoa@lsis.org, nacer.msirdi@lsis.org, aziz.naamane@lsis.org
2 Université de Montreal Canada

el-kebir.boukas@polymtl.ca

Abstract— Switched and piecewise affine models are interesting
when modeling a nonlinear and non stationary complex system.
Identification of these models is a challenging problem that
involves estimation of both the parameters of the submodels,
and the partitioning of state and input space. In this paper, we
introduce a subspace technique for identification of the class of
multivariable hybrid complex system with unknown switching.
Observability and Identifiability problems are discussed. The
verification will be done for an experimental greenhouse.
Index Terms— Hybrid Systems, Varying Complex Systems,
Identification, Observability.
I. INTRODUCTION
Hybrid systems are heterogeneous dynamical systems
whose behavior is defined by interacting continuous and dis-
crete dynamics. The continous dynamics is described by vari-
ables taking values from a continuous set, while the discrete
dynamics is described by variables (or events) taking values
from a discrete, typically finite, set. Such systems are common
across a wide range of application areas. Examples include
robotic assembly [1], manufacturing [2], power systems [3]
and human control behavior [5].
Hybrid systems can be used to describe real phenomena that
exhibit discontinuous behaviors. For instance, the trajectory of
a mass-spring jumper results from alternating between flying
phase and contact phase or free fall and elastic contact of the
spring with the ground [25]. Moreover, hybrid models can be
used to approximate continuous phenomena by concatening
different simple models. In fact, we consider a hybrid systems
operating in differents environments with changing features.
Hence, different submodels are required [7], [6], [4]. For
instance, a nonlinear dynamic system can be approximated
by switching among various linear models. In this case,
concerining the partitioning of state-space, two alternative
approaches can be distinguished: either the partition is fixed a
priori, or the partition is estimated along with the submodels.
In the first case, data classification is very simple, and esti-
mation of the submodels can be carried out by standart linear
identification techniques as it shown in [8] and also argued in
[9]. Effectively the identification of PieceWise Affine (PWA)
and PieceWise Linear (PWL) systems for which the switching
is known can be tackled using standard techniques. In the
second case, the regions must be shaped to the clusters of data,
and the strict relation among data classification, parameter
estimation and regions for estimation must be verified.
In the literature we can find two subclasses of models to
approximate continuous phenomena in a nonlinear dynamics,
namely Hinging hyperplanes ARX (HHARX) [13], [12], [11],
and PieceWise ARX (PWARX) models. These can be also
solved via Mixed-Integer Linear Programming/ Mixed-Integer
Quadratic Programming (MILP/MIQP) [14]. Unfortunately,
these algorithm have too much computational complexity and
are not suitable for multivariable systems framework.
A. Paper contribution
In the first part, this paper introduces a brief topic of models
for hybrid systems by focusing in particular on the switched
affine and PiecWise Affine models (PWA). PWA systems are
a class of hybrid systems obtained by partitioning the state-
input domain into finite number of non-overlapping convex
polyhedral regions, and by considering linear/affine sybsys-
tems in each region [10]. In the second part, we try to use
subspace technique for identification of multivariable hybrid
complex systems with unknown switching. In order to do
that, we use an interconnection between discrete event atomic
model with a collection of state-space linear models. The
atomic models is necessary to identify the operating modes
of global system and the state-space model is used to describe
the continuous dynamic of the process. Furthermore, state-
space models are more suitable for dealing with multivariable
inputs and outputs.
B. Paper outline
This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, section 2 in-
troduces the classes of switched affine and piecewise affine
models, and on the other hande describes the hybrid complex
system models. Section 3 reports several formulations of the
identification problem on the observability and identifiability
of each submodel. Section 4 gives some experimental results
for an identification of an experimental greenhouse. Finally, in
section 5 we conclude and give some perspectives for a futur
work.
II. SWITCHED AFFINE AND PIECEWISE AFFINE
MODELS
Switched affine models are defined as collections of lin-
ear/affine models, connected by switches that are indexed by
a discrete-valued additional variable, called the discrete state.
Models for which the discrete state is determined by a polyhe-
dral partition of state-input domain, are called piecewise affine
models. Moreover, piecewise affine models are equivalent to
several classes of hybrid models, and can therefore be used to
describe systems exhibiting hybrid structures. In the literature
we can find two categories: models in state space form and
models in input-output form.
A. Models in state space form
A discrete-time switched affine model in state space form
is described by the equations
x(k + 1) = Aq(k) x(k) + Bq(k) u(k) + fq(k) + w(k)
(1)
y(k) = Cq(k) x(k) + Dq(k) u(k) + gq(k) + v(k)
where x(k) ∈ Rn , u(k) ∈ Rm and y(k) ∈ R p are respectively, the
continuous state, the input and the output of system at time k ∈
Z, and w(k) ∈ Rn and v(k) ∈ R p are noise/error terms. The dis-
crete state q(k) describing in what affine dynamics the system
is at time k, is assumed to take only finite number of values, i.e.
q(k) ∈ {1, ..., s} where s is the number of affine submodels. In Fig. 1. Hybrid complex system representation
general, q(k) can be a function of (k, x(k), u(k)) or some other
external input. The real matrices/vectors Ai , Bi ,Ci , Di , fi and gi ,
i = 1, ..., s, having appropriate dimensions, describe each affine is the operating modes of the system (i.e. depending on the
dynamics. Hence, model 1 can be seen as a collection of affine region of operation and the valid submodel). The discrete
models with continuous state x(k), connected by switches that system is in Modemi when operation is in the region Ωmi ,
are indexed by the discrete state q(k). mi = 1, ..., s. I is the set of input event values (i.e. all the values
B. Hybrid complex systems models that an input event can take). The events may be considered
as defined by state x(k) of the system and any internal x(k)-
Switched affine and piecewise affine models are interesting dependant variable. Then, events depend on input values of the
when modeling a nonlinear systems. Several simplifications mi associated to valid model noted I(k) [18]. As consequence
are necessary in order to do that. These simplifications are the validity domain Ωmi depends also on this input. O is the set
based on the following assumptions: of output event values. λ is the output function which warrants
Assumption 2.1: we assume that: the activity execution. δint is the internal transition function.
1) The global dynamic behavior of the system can be It ensures mode switches when no exogenous events come
stabilized around some operating modes. out before elapsed time ti and time advance of this mode ta
2) The evolution of the continuous dynamics of the system [17] : Mode j = δint (Modei ,ti + ta). δext is the external transit
can be approximated by linear models around each function. This function is used when exogenous events come
operating mode. out [17] : Mode j = δext (Modei ,ti , Ii ).
3) The system behaves like a statinary system around each
operating mode. III. HYBRID COMPLEX MODELS IDENTIFICATION
4) Each operating mode can be associated with discrete
event characterizing the global dynamic behavior. A. Observability/Identifiability
According to assumptions (2.1), to describe the global sys- To ensure the exact reconstruction of the state infinite time
tem’s behavior, we use an arbitrary interconnection between we must ensure the observability properties of the system.
a piecewise affine models in state-space form with discrete Several researchers work in this framework [27], [28], [29],
events atomic models. The latter is used for relaxing fixation [31], [32]. In [30], Vidal et al. carried out the first systematic
of partitioning of the state-space number studied in [8]. attempt to characterize observability concepts in switched
Moreover, these coupled models (figure 1) represent some linear systems. However, their work restricts the switching by
advantages, for instance the use is simple and can be described imposing an unnecessary minimum separation time between
by the following relations : consecutive switches and contains several flaws.
Theorem 3.1 (Vidal [30]): If (C(k)−C(k′ ))A(k) is full rank
 x(k + 1) = Ami x(k) + Bemi e(k) + Bvmi v(k) + w(k)

for all k 6= k′ ∈ {1, ..., N} and the dwell time τk ≥ ε for
y(k) = Cmi x(k) + Demi e(k) + Dvmi v(k) + µ (k) (2)
all k ≥ 0, then the initial state the switching times are ob-
mi = hMode, I, O, δint , δext , λ ,ta i

servable if and only if for all k 6= k′ ∈ {1, ..., N} we have
where w(k) ∈ Rn and µ (k) ∈ R p are noise/error terms. v(k) rank([Oε (k) Oε (k′ )]) = 2n.
is the input which define the external environment. The real Unfortunately Bemporad [26] show through counterexamples
matrices/vectors Ami , Bemi , Bvmi ,Cmi and Dmi , mi = 1, ..., s, with that observability properties cannot be easily deduced. Thus,
appropriate dimensions, describe each affine dynamics. Mode an extension of this theorem is give in [28] to ensure the exact
 Step Operation Variables
1 a- Data Acquisition Ymi ,Umi
b- Data processing and scale adjustement Ymi Norm ,Umi Norm
c- Setting Input/Output variables of the supervisor Imi , Omi
2 a- Identification des modes opratoires Mode mi
Ymi ,Umi ⊂ Ω(Modemi , Imi , Omi )
© ª
c- Data Classification in each oprating mode
3 a- Identification of parameters of each sub-models Âmi , B̂mi , Ĉmi
b- Validation of the structure Âmi , B̂mi , Ĉmi , Modemi , Imi , Omi
TABLE I
I DENTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR HYBRID COMPLEX SYSTEM

reconstruction of the state. This is based on the detectability
and observability notion.
Theorem 3.2 (De Santis [28]): A switching system is ob-
servable if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) S(qi ) is observable for any qi ∈ Q
(ii) ∀p ∈ Ω(γ ), ∀qi , q j ∈ γ −1 (p), ∃k ∈ N ∪ {0} :
Ci Aki Bi 6= C j Akj B j
Moreover, if the maximum dwell time τM = ∞, then condition
(i) and (ii) are necessary.
Theorem 3.3: A switching system is detectable if the fol-
lowing conditions are satisfied:
(iii) ∀p ∈ Ω(γ ), ∀qi , q j ∈ γ −1 (p), ∃k ∈ N ∪ {0} :
Ci1 Aki11 Bi1 6= C j1 Akj11 B j1 µ ¶
ξ0
(iv) for all inital states ∈ Oi × Q, i ∈ J, and for any
q0
ε > 0, there exist t > t0 such as kξ (t, j)k ≤ ξ for any t ≥ t.
Leads to another important issue on the identifiability: under
which conditions can we recover good model from data? In
other words, whether the model itself can be inferred from
data.
B. Identification procedure
This section adresses the identification of hybrid complex
systems defined by the equation (2).
Problem 3.1: Given a collection of N input-output pairs
(y(k), u(k)), k = 1, ..., N, estimate the model order n, the num-
ber of submodels s, and the parameters (Ami , Bmi ,Cmi , Dmi ),
mi = 1, ..., s. Moreover, estimate the operating modes Mode
which define each validity domain Ωmi .
In order to find all paramaters of equation (2), we propose the
algorithm defined in the table I.
The step 1 is acquisition of data and its transformation to
ensure that all variables are in the same basis in different
operating modes. This transformation is defined by
(MX − X)
Tr f (X) = 1 − ; (3)
(MX − mX )
where Tr f (X) ∈ {0, 1} is the transformation applied for the
variable X, MX and mX are respectively the maximum and
minimum values of the input-output vector noted X.
The step 2 consists on the one hand to the identification of
all parameters of atomic model which define each operating
modes {Imi , Omi } → Modemi and on the other hand ensures tha
data classification for identification of submodels {Ymi ,Umi } ⊂
Ω(Modemi , Imi , Omi ).
The step 3 consists to the identification of all parameters of
each submodel (Ami , Bmi ,Cmi , Dmi ).
C. Discrete Events atomic model to identify operating modes
Let us recall discrete event atomic model to represent
sequences of events [15] with the condition that the state has
a finite number of changes in any finite interval of time [15]:
mi = hMode, I, O, δint , δext , λ ,ta i (4)
So, an event is the representation of an instantaneous change
in some part of a system that can be associated with one
operating mode. An event can be characterized by a value
and an ocurrence time also [17]. To identify each operating
mode, let us consider the following definition and procedure:
1) Operating mode variables definition: The discrete state
variables are:
Mode = {phase, I,ta} (5)
where phase variable is introduced in order to have a clean
interpretation of the model behavior, I and ta is respectively
the set of the input variables and the time advance for each
operating mode. If we note k the current operating mode value,
the possible phase can be represented in Table II. To obtain
Phase Mode value
Ph1 Mode = k, I = I1
Ph2 Mode = k, I = I2
. .
.. ..
Phs Mode = k, I = Is
TABLE II
TABLE OF PHASE
the different values (I1 , I2 , ..., Is ) of the input variables I, we
adopt the following definition:
2) Input variables definition: The set of inputs, I, is:
I = {ev1 , ev2 , ..., evs , I1 , I2 , ..., Is } (6)
where (ev1 , ev2 , ..., evs ) is the set of event variables and
(I1 , I2 , ..., Is ) are the set of different input values. These values
are obtained from a discretization of continuous input variables
to piecewise continuous segment following the next procedure
(Figure 2):
• define a threshold Ri , i = 1, ..., l, where l is a performance
index for quantifying the input descrptive variable (table

Fig. 2. Signal discretization
III), in order to transform the continuous segment in a
piecewise constant segment (note that the discretization
procedure is in the variable values regardlessness the
time, i.e. this is not the output of classical sample and
hold),
• a discrete event is then associated to each change of value
in the piecewise constant segment.
XX
X Values
XX I1 I2 I3
Input XX X
I ≤ R2 > R2 et ≤ R3 > R3
TABLE III
T HRESHOLD DEFINITION FOR INPUT VALUES OF ATOMIC MODEL
3) Output variables definition: An atomic model processes
an input event trajectory and, according to that trajectory and
its own initial conditions provokes an output event trajectory.
So, when an input event arrives the mode changes instan-
taneously. The output variables O values can be associated
with one selector that define the input-output (y(k), u(k)) pairs
necessary to identify each submodel. So, we can write:
O = {O1 , O2 , ..., Os } → {y(k), u(k)}/Mode (7)
Therefore, if the switching sequence is known and the input-
output (y(k), u(k)) pairs is defined, the matrices of each sub-
model can be tackled using standart techniques like subspace
identification methods.
D. Subspace techniques to identify each submodel
Let us consider stable linear time-invariant discrete time
systems Σmi of finite order n, valid in the operating zone Ωmi .
One form of describing such system is in equation (1). To
identify all parameters of this system we make reference on
the general concept in subspace identification that we consider
as the most procedure to identify our system. Moreover,
subspace identification is by now a well-accepted method
for identification of multivariable linear system [19], [20],
[22], [23]. The following input-output matrix equation [21],
played a very important role in the development of subspace
identification :
Yi/i = Oi Xi/i + Hi Ui/i + Fi Vi/i + Wi/i (8)
The reader can to refer at [35] for the definition of the different
terms in this equation. Now, the basic idea of subspace identi-
fication is to try to recover the Oi Xi/i -term of the equation
(8). This is a particularly interesting term since either the
knowledge of Oi or Xi/i leads to the system parameters.
How can an estimate of Oi Xi/i be extracted from above
equation? For this we need to define the orthogonal projection.
Definition 3.1: The orthogonal projection of the row space
of M into the row space of N is denoted by MΠN as:
MΠN = MN T (NN T )(−) N (9)
with .(−) is the Pseudo-inverse of Moore-Penrose. MΠN ⊥ is
the projection of the row space of M into N ⊥ , the orthogonal
complement of the row space of N, for which we have
MΠN ⊥ = M − MΠN
By projecting the row space of Yi/i into the orthogonal
complement U⊥ i/i of the row space of Ui/i we find :
Yi/i ΠU⊥ = Oi Xi/i ΠU⊥ + Fi Vi/i ΠU⊥ + Wi/i ΠU⊥ (10)
i/i i/i i/i i/i
The following step consits in weighting this projection to the
left and to the right with some matrices M∞ and M∈ can not
be chosen arbitrarily but they should satisfy the following 3
conditions:
1) rank(M1 Oi ) = rank(Oi )
2) rank(Xi/i ΠU⊥ M2 ) = rank(Xi/i )
i/i
3) E[M1 (Fi Vi/i ΠU⊥ + Wi/i ΠU⊥ )M2 ] = 0
i/i i/i
The first two conditions guarantee that the rank-n property of
Oi Xi/i is preserved after projection onto U⊥
i/i and weighting by
M1 and M2 . The third condition expresses that M2 should
be uncorrelated with noise sequences w(k) and v(k) to obtain
unbiased estimations.
1) Determination of A and C: The matrices A and C can be
determined from the extended observability matrix in different
ways. All the methods, make use of the shift invariance
property of the matrix Oi , which implies that:
(−)
 = O i O i , o Oi = Oi (1 : l(i − 1), :) et O i = Oi (l : li, :) (11)
and
Ĉ = O i (1 : l, :) (12)
2) Determination of B and D: After the determination of
A and C, the system matrices B and D have to be computed.
From the Input/Output equation (8), we define that:
(−) (−)
Oi⊥ Yi/i Ui/i = Oi⊥ Hi + Oi⊥ (Fi Vi/i + Wi/i )Ui/i (13)
The noise sequences is uncorrelated with the Input, we have:
(−)
E[Oi⊥ Yi/i Ui/i ] = Oi⊥ Hi (14)

where Oi⊥ is a full row rank matrix satisfying Oi⊥ .Oi = 0. Here
once again the noise is cancelled out due to the assumption
that the input u(k) is correlated with the noise. Observe that
with known matrices A,C, Oi⊥ , Ui/i and Yi/i , the equation (13)
is linear in B and D.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

In this section we give some results in the identification
of the greenhouse models. We consider one day of March
(10 March) to identify all parameters [33], [34]. Therefore,
we retain the variables Rg and V v like descriptive variables
of the environment where our system evolves. The choice
of these variables have been done in a previous work [7],
[24]. Moreover, these variables are necessary to construct the
transition table IV which used for the discretization of the
descriptive variables.
XXX Values
XX Lower Middle Upper
Input XX X
Vv ≤ R′1 − > R′1 Fig. 3. a) Atomic discrete events model. b) Switching result between the
Rg ≤ R′1 > R′1 and ≤ R′2 > R′2 different operating modes for the identification procedure.

TABLE IV
E NVIRONMENT SPECIFICATION DISCRETIZATION Fresh. This leads us six submodels associated with six oper-
ating modes. The atomic model associated with this system
is illustrated in the figure (3a). The simulation done with the
Furthermore, the wind speed will take the following values discrete events atomic model let us to have an idea on the
V v = {V vL,V vU} which are respectively Lower and U pper detectability and observability of all operating modes of the
values of V v while the global radiation of the sun will take system and the corresponding time range. This is illustrated
Rg = {RgL, RgM, RgU} which are respectively Lower, Middle in figure (3b). This result shows us a priori that our system
and U pper values of Rg. The combination of the descriptive is completely observable (resp. identifiable). On the other
variables values Rg et V v allows us to have 6 operating modes hand as for us, our system loses its observability due to
which are in the table V. fact that we have one very short total dwell time for several
operating modes and they are hardly detectable. For instance,
Mode Phase Input variable
Mode1 ColdNight I1 = {RgL,V vU} the modes 6, 3 and 1. However, a small-scale model can be
Mode2 FreshNight I2 = {RgL,V vL} defined to preserve the observability and the identifiability
Mode3 ColdDaybreak I3 = {RgM,V vU} while eliminating modes with short dwell time. Thus, we can
Mode4 FreshDaybreak I4 = {RgM,V vL}
formulate the following proposition:
Mode5 ColdDay I5 = {RgU,V vL}
Mode6 FreshDay I6 = {RgU,V vU} Proposition 4.1: With a dwell time τk ≥ ε for all k ≥ 0
1) All sub-systems must be observable,
TABLE V
2) All operating modes must be detectable,
D ISCRETE MODE DESIGNATION OF THE SUPERVISION DEVICE
3) The total dwell time Tmi = ∑Nk=1 mi
τk for one mode make
it is possible to verify the conditions of persistently
exciting input signal for identification of submodels.
• All operating modes are defined by: Mode = Therefore, the discreet events atomic model is
Mode1 , Mode2 , Mode3 , Mode4 , Mode5 , Mode6 . ∗
composed of operating ª modes defined by Mode =
• Input variables defined by the set I = {I1 , I2 , I3 , I4 , I5 , I6 }, ∗ ∗ ∗
©
Mode1 , Mode
© 2 , Mode ª 3 , input variables defined by the
associated respectively by the input events set ev = set I ∗ = I1∗ , I2∗©
, I3∗ associated ª respectively by the input
{ev1 , ev2 , ev3 , ev4 , ev5 , ev6 }. events set ev∗ = ev©∗1 , ev∗2 , ev∗3 ª
and the set of output events is
• The set of corresponding output events is described by described by O∗ = O∗1 , O∗2 , O∗3 . This is illustrated in figure
O = {O1 , O2 , O3 , O4 , O5 , O6 }. (4a). The switching results for the experimental greenhouse
The submodels are in three categories : day, night, and are illustrated in the figure (4b). Now, we can identify the
daybreak. In each category they are two classes : Cold and continuous dynamical models parameters according to the
algorithm described above. Thus, we have the following same way, we can show the effectiveness of this approach, in
models for each mode: modeling case while considering only 3 modes where, as for
us, our system is observable and identifiable.

Commutation de modèles pour différents jours de simulation

6
Avec 3 Modes Observables/Identifiables
Avec 6 Modes Non Observables/Non Identifiables

Modes Opératoires
4

1
0 8 16 33 41 50 58 66 75 83
Heures

Estimation des deux variables d état de la Serre

35
Estimé
Mesure
Température intérieure
30

25

20

15
0 8 16 33 41 50 58 66 75 83
Heures
Fig. 4. a) Atomic discrete events model with observability and identifiability
constraints. b) Equivalent operating modes commutation for the identification
70
procedure. Estimé
60 Mesure
Hygrométrie intérieure

for the mode:

µ Mode∗1 ¶ µ ¶
50

−0.2128 0.0819 1 0 40
AMode1 =
∗ ; CMode1 =
∗ ;
µ 0.1259 −0.2162¶
30
0 1
20
0.1469 0 0 0
BuMode∗ = ;
1
µ−0.1480 0 0 0 ¶
10

v 0.0848 −0.0679 −0.1323 0 0

0 8 16 33 41 50 58 66 75 83
BMode∗ = ; Heures
1 0.0109 0.1365 0.1780 0
for the mode ∗
µ : Mode2 ¶ µ ¶ Fig. 5. 1) Operating modes commutation between 6 operating modes (solid
line) and 3 operating modes (dashed line). 2) Simulation results between real
−0.2694 −0.3000 1 0
AMode∗2 = ; CMode∗2 = ; (solid line) and estimated (dashed line) internal temperature. 3) Simulation
µ 0.3795 −0.4274
¶ 0 1 result between real (solid line) and estimated (dashed line) internal humidity.
0 0 0 0
BuMode∗ = ;
2
µ0 0 0 0 ¶
v 0.3946 0.3160 −0.0630 0.1335
BMode∗ = ; V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
2 0.5616 0.6740 −0.1797 −0.9603
and for the ∗ We propose of this work an approach to modeling a multi-
µ mode : Mode3
variable hybrid complex systems. The system is defined by an
¶ µ ¶
−0.3235 −0.0513 1 0
AMode∗3 = ; CMode∗3 = ; interconnection between discrete atomic model with a set of
µ−0.2581 −1.1357 0 1
state-space linear models. The atomic model is used to identify
¶
0 −0.1304 −0.2003 −0.1020
BuMode∗ = ; the operating modes where our system evolves, and the state-
3
µ0 0.5993 −0.5851 0.0743
space linear models to approximate continuous phenomena
¶
v 0.3186 0.1036 −0.0076 0.2572
BMode∗ = ; in a nonlinear and not stationary dynamical system. Each
3 0.9125 0.9130 0.2010 −0.1596
In the experimentation, we have considered four days of operating mode is identify from an interpretation of the process
March. Its the 10, 11, 12 and 15March. These choices were behavior and to identify all parameters of each state space
made owing to the fact that these days take into account model, we make reference on the general concept in subspace
even behaviors which all are not similar. The figure (5) gives identification. It has shown with our motivated example some
us the result of simulation between the internal temperature observability and identifiability problems. It has proposed to
and hygrometry of the estimated and mesured values. For the eliminate the operating modes which have a short dwell time
 to check the conditions of persistently exciting input signals
for identification of submodels.
The principal perspective of this work is the re-definition of
the observability and identifiability for the classes of hybrid
systems. On the other hand the extension of this methodology
in diagnosis of the complex systems framework can be tackled.
The measurement or operation failures of the system must be
able to be distinguished from an occurrence of the events not
observed or risks.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. J. McCarragher , G. E. Hovland: Hiden Markov Models as a process
monitor in a robotic assembly, International Journal of Robotics research
(1996).
[2] S. Pettersson, Analysis and design of hybrid systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
Departement of signals and systems. Chalmers university of technology,
Goteborg, Sweden (1999).
[3] I. A. Hiskens, M.A. Pai: Hybrid systems view of power system mod-
eling, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on circuits
and Systems, Geneva, Switzerland (May 2000).
[4] R. Murray-Smith, R., Johansen, T.A., Shorten, R.: Multiple model
approaches to modeling and Control. Taylor and Francis London (1997).
[5] R. Murray-Smith: Modeling human control behaviour with context-
dependent markov switching multiple-models, IFAC Man-Machine Sys-
tems Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 1998.
[6] K. S. Narendra, J. Balakrishnan, and M. Kemal Cimiz: Adaptation and
learning using multiple-models, switching and tuning, IEEE Control
Systems( June 1995).
[7] N. Pessel, J.F. Balmat, F. Lafont, J. Duplaix: Data Analysis For Neuro-
Fuzzy Model Approach, STIC-LSIS, Universite du Sud Toulon-Var(Sofa
2005).
[8] Verdult, V., Verhaegen, M.: Subspace Identification of Piecewise Linear
Systems. In Proc. of the 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas, December 14-17 (2004).
[9] J. Roll, A. Bemporad, and L. Ljung: Identification of Piecewise Affine
Systems via Mixed-Integer Programming. Automatica, vol. 40 no.1, pp.
37-50 (2004).
[10] E. D. Sontag. Nonlinear rgulation : the piecewise linear approach. IEEE
Transactions on automatic control. vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 346-358 (1981).
[11] A. Bemporad and M. Morari, Control of systems integrating logic,
dynamics, and constraints, Automatica, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 407-427
(1999).
[12] G. Ferari-Trecate, D. Mignone, M. Morari: Moving horizon estimation
for Piecewise Affine Systems. Proceedings of American Control Con-
ference, Arlington (VA), US. (2001).
[13] Breiman, L.: Hinging hyperplanes for regression, classification and
function approximation. IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, vol. 39,
pp. 999-1013 (1993).
[14] A. Bemporad, J. Roll, L. Ljung: Identification of Hybrid Systems via
Mixed-Integer Programming. In Proc. of the 40th IEEE Conference on
decision and control, Orlando USA (December 2001).
[15] Zeigler, B.P.: DEVS Theory of Quantized Systems. Advance Simulation
Technology Thrust (ASTT), DARPA Contract N6133997K-0007 (June
1998).
[16] B. P. Zeigler, Theory of modeling and simulation, Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY (1976).
View publication stats
[17] N. Giambiaisi, N. R. Doboz, E. Ramat, Introduction à la modélisation
à évènements discrets, LSIS UMR CNRS 6168, LIL Calais, Rapport
interne N LIL-2002-02 (2002).
[18] I. Baruch, F. Thomas, R. Garrido, E. Gortcheva A Hybrid Multimodel
Neural Network for Nonlinear Systems Identification (1996).
[19] M. Verhaegen, Identification of the deterministic part of MIMO state
space models, Automatica, vol. 30, pp. 61-74 (1994).
[20] P. Van Overschee: Subspace identification of linear systems: theory,
implementation, application. Phd Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
(February 1995).
[21] De Moor, B.: Mathematicals concepts and techniques for modeling
of static and dynamic systemes. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Faculteit der Toegepaste Wetenschappen, Leuven, Belgium
(1988).
[22] Viberg, M., Wahlberg, B., Ottersten, B.: Analysis of state space system
identification methods based on instrumental variables and subspace
fitting. Departement of applied electronics, Chalmers University of
Technology (April 1996).
[23] Bastogne, T., Richard, A., Sibille, P.: Identification des systemes multi-
variables : methodes des sous-espaces. Partie 2: Applicabilite et interets.
Centre de recherche en automatique de Nancy. Technique et Science
informatique, vol. 15, no. 6, (1996).
[24] N. K. M’Sirdi, L. H. Rajaoarisoa, Modeling for a class of Nonlinear
Variable Structure Systems for Diagnosis and control, Qualit et Suret de
Fonctionnement QUALITA 2007, Tanger Maroc, (March 20-22 2007).
[25] N. K. M’Sirdi, L. H. Rajaoarisoa, J. F. Balmat, J. Duplaix, Modeling
for Control and diagnosis for a class of Nonlinear complex switched
systems, Advances in Vehicle Control and Safety AVCS 07, Buenos
Aires Argentine (February 8-10 2007).
[26] A. Bemporad, G. Ferrari-Trecate, and M. Morari. Observability and
controllability of piecewise affine and hybrid systems. In Proceedings
of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3966-3971,
New York (1999).
[27] P.J. Ramadge and W.M. Wonham. Supervisory control of a class of
discrete-event processes. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization,
vol. 25, pp. 206-230 (1987).
[28] De Santis, E., Di Benedetto, M.D., Pola, G.: On observability and
detectability of continuous-time linear switching systems, in Proc. of
the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 6, pp. 5777 -
5782 (december 2003).
[29] Collins, P., Van Schuppen, J.H.: Observability of Piecewise-Affine
Hybrid Systems. In: Allur,R., Pappas,G.J. (eds.): HSCC, LNCC 2993
pp. 265-279 (2004).
[30] R. Vidal, A. Chiuso, S. Soatto, and S. Sastry. Observability of linear
hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS,
pp. 526-539. Springer Verlag (2003).
[31] Balluchi, A., Benvenuti, L., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A.L.: Discrete
and continuous structural properties for observability. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science 2289. In: Tomlin, C.J., Greensreet,M.R. (eds.):
Springer pp. 76-89 (2002).
[32] Chaib, S., Boutat, D., Benalia, A., Barbot, J.P.: Observability of the dis-
crete state for dynamical piecewise hybrid systems. Elsevier Nonlinear
Analysis, vol. 63, pp. 423-438 (2005).
[33] L. H. Rajaoarisoa, N. K. M’Sirdi, J. F. Balmat, M. Romero, Reprsenta-
tion multi modle avec commutation pour systme complexe. Application
sur une serre agricole, MAJECSTIC06, Lorient (Novembre 2006).
[34] L. H. Rajaoarisoa, N. K. M’Sirdi : Modeling for Control and Diag-
nosis for a Class of Nonlinear Systems, Sciences et Techniques de
l’Automatique STA06, Tunisie (Novembre 2006).
[35] W. Favoreel, B. De Moor, and P. Van Overschee: Subspace state space
system identification for industrial processes, in Proc. of the 5th IFAC
Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process Systems, June 8-10,
Corfu, Greece, pp. 322-330 (1998).