Structural Identifiability Analysis of Steady-State

Induction Machine Models

Ahmed M. Alturas, Shady Gadoue Bashar Zahawi A. S. Abdel-Khalik

and Mohammed A. Elgendy Electrical & Computer Engineering Electrical Engineering Department,
School of Electrical and Electronic Khalifa University of Science Alexandria University, Alexandria,
Engineering, Newcastle University Technology & Research (KUSTAR) Egypt
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Abu Dhabi, UAE
Ahmed.alturas@ncl.ac.uk bashar.zahawi@kustar.ac.ae

Abstract-Many mathematical models have been developed to
describe the dynamic behaviour of induction machines and have
been utilized in induction machines parameter identification. In
some cases, model parameters may not be uniquely estimated,
regardless of the used algorithm and the quality and quantity of
the used measurements. This non-identifiability is related to the
structure of the model itself. In this paper, the
identifiability of three commonly used steady-state induction
machine models (the standard T-model, the inverse r-model and
the r-model) is investigated. Such analysis deals
uniqueness of the solution for the unknown model parameters
and is, therefore a prerequisite for induction machine parameter
identification. Two structural identifiability techniques,
transfer function and bond graph, are reviewed and applied for
testing the identifiability of the three models. The results show
the importance of identifiability analysis before
parameter identification. Structural identifiability investigation
confirms the non-identifiability of the T-model and, on the other
hand, the global identifiability of both the inverse r- and r­
models.
Keywords-component; Induction machine; Equivalent circuit,
Structural identifiability;
I. INTRODUCTION
Structural identifiability analysis should be considered
when designing a model for induction machine parameter
identification. A structural identifiability analysis determines
whether the induction machine unknown parameters can be
uniquely determined from the input/output measurements. In
the literature, considerable progress has been made towards
deriving different models of induction motors (lMs) and many
approaches have been introduced for parameter identification
[1, 2].
A standard approach for IMs parameter identification is to
estimate all parameters of the IMs based only on the external
measurements of voltage, current, speed and/or torque [3-5]. In
such approaches, it is essential to ascertain whether the
unknown parameters are uniquely identifiable before collecting
measurement data. Any divergence between the true and the
estimated model parameter values may result in a wrong
assessment of the machine performance and lead to
deterioration in its behaviour.
If the used model was unidentifiable, one of the infinite
mathematical solutions will be obtained depending on the used
algorithm [6]. Although each parameter of an 1M has an
importance in the modelling, some parameters may not reliably
estimated based on a given measurements by many reasons
including poor algorithm and model structure. If the model
structural
parameters are unidentifiable, there will always be
combinations of these parameters. Therefore, it is important to
find the unidentifiable parameters of the model so they can be
with the
excluded from the parameter vector by eliminating them or
fixing their values to proper ones.
the In general, identifiability analysis can be done either
structurally or practically. Approaches that analytically study
the model equations, no attention is paid for any restrictions
performing
related to the model operation, are called structural (a priori)
methods. A structural non-identifiability arises when there are
redundant parameters in the model structure, and can be
removed analytically by introducing new restrictions, e.g. an
identifiable combination of some unidentifiable parameters [7].
In practical (posteriori) identifiability analysis, identifiability is
tested by fmding out if the measured information are enough to
estimate the parameter reliably or not using simulated or
measured data [8]. The analysis of structural identifiability of
mathematical models has received major attention in recent
years [9]. Various approaches exist to detect structural non­
identifiability by a priori analyzing of the system model [10,
11]. More specifically two techniques, the transfer function and
the bond-graph, have been applied to 1M identifiability
analysis. The analysis was applied only to the T-model and
results showed that the conventional machine T-model
parameters are not uniquely identifiable [4, 12]. However,
these approaches have not been employed to assess the
identifiability of other machine models.
In this paper, structural identifiability of three induction
motor equivalent circuits namely T-model, inverse r-model
and r -model is investigated. Two techniques based on the
transfer function and the bond-graph representing structural (a
priori) identifiability analysis are utilized. These techniques are
first reviewed and applied for the identifiability analysis of the
machine T-model. The same techniques are utilized for the first
time to assess the identifiability of the other 1M models
(inverse r - and r -models).

978-1-4673-9130-6/15/$31.00 ©2015

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 II. INDUCTION MOTOR STEADy-STATE MODELS

Due to their simplicity and shorter computation time,

steady-state 1M models have gained more acceptances in 1M
parameter identification [9]. The equivalent T-model, Fig. 5, is
the most 1M model that can be found in the literature and is
becoming increasingly used in different applications including
1M parameter identification [13]. This model consists of five
electrical parameters: R" R" II" Ilr and Ln" where Rs is the stator
resistance, Rr is the rotor resistance (referred to the stator), lis Fig. I. Induction motor T-equivalent circuit.
and Ilr are the leakage inductances for stator and rotor
respectively, Lm is the magnetising inductance and s is the slip
given by (ns-nr)/n" where ns the stator field speed and nr is the
rotor mechanical speed. For T-model the relationship between
the flux linkages (lJf/, lJf/), and the winding currents (i/, i/) is:

R,./s
(I)

A simple change to obtain two mathematically equivalent

Fig. 2. Induction motor Inverse f- equivalent circuit.
circuits with only two inductances that give the same
performance as the T-equivalent circuit have been proposed
[6]. These equivalent circuits are known as inverse f-model
(Fig. 2) and f-model (Fig. 3) of the 1M. As long as the input
voltage is the same, the two models have the same input
impedance and produce the same torque as the T-model.
The relationship between the flux linkages and the winding
currents of inverse f-model is given by:

(2) Fig. 3. Induction motor f- equivalent circuit.

The relations between the parameters of the T-model and

III. STRUCTURAL IDENTIFIABILITY ANALYSIS
the inverse f-model are as follow [6]:
ApPROACHES
a = Lm / Lf' Models describing dynamic properties of 1M are usually
I;s = Ls -aLm' defined as a system of differential equations and can be written
(3) in the form of state-space. The dynamic model of IMs
Lm =aLm, depending on a parameter vector PE R"' is described by:
,
2
Rr =a Rr
x{t) A{P)X{t) + B{P)V{t)
=
(6)
From Fig. 3, the relationship between the flux linkages and
Y{t) C{p)X{t)
=

the winding currents of f-model is given by:

where A, Band C are matrices of proper dimensions and each
(4) of them consisting of some or all of unknown parameters. The
vector P is said to be globally identifiable if [14]:

The relations between the parameters of the T-model and

the f- model is given by [6]: (7)

a = Ls / Lm,
"
2
Ilr =a Lr -aLm, Implies that P = P 'if P, PE �n
(5)
L�, =aLm' The structural identifiability term means whether it is
"
2
possible to recover the parameter P vector uniquely from
Rr =a Rr input/output measurements, Vet), Yet), tE [O,T], or not. In other
words, the parameter vector P is identifiable if and only if any
where Ls and L r are the self-inductances of the stator and rotor, change in the values of the parameters results in a change in the
respectively. measured quantities Yet).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Based on the structural identifiability analysis results,
models can be categorized into three different classes; globally
identifiable where all the unknown parameters in the model can
be uniquely determined, locally identifiable when one or more
of the parameters in the parameter vector may take more than
one of a [mite number of values, and unidentifiable where there
is one or more unidentifiable parameters in the parameter
vector P. In order to uniquely identify all parameter for
unidentified models, a solution should be made including
model reduction, reparameterization, and measurements
increasing [15].
Recently, some work has been carried out to obtain general
criteria for a priori identifiability. Various methods have been
proposed in the literature to analyze the identifiability of
system models [16, 17]. Among structural identifiability
techniques, two approaches based on the transfer function [18]
and the bond-graph [12, 19] are introduced.
In this section, a brief discerption is given for the two
techniques (the transfer function and bond-graph).
A. The Transfer Function Approach
A simple approach can be used if the transfer function of
the model can be computed as a function of its parameter
vector P. The complete dynamic model can be described as,
recalling Equation (5):
In this approach, the system can be represented by lines and
symbols identifying the power flow paths of the system by a
combination of efforts and flows. Any interface between two
elements in the bond graph is known as a port. In electrical
domain, port variables of the bond graph are the voltage over
the element port and the current through the element port.
The bond graph has five types of elements; two active and
three passive. The two active elements are the bond graph
sources i.e. effort source SE (voltage) and flow source SF
(current). The remaining three are represented by an R, I and C
for resistive, inductive and capacitive elements, respectively.
Each of these elements has a single power bond attached (line
with the element at the end of the bond) showing the exchange
of the power at one location.
Power bond may join in one of two types of junctions
called I-junction and O-junction. I-junction represents
locations in the circuit with common current flow, where 0-
junction represents nodes of the circuit where voltages are
same. Consequently, series connected elements are connected
at I-junction while parallel branches are connect at O-junction.
A power flow diagram is created by connecting the elements in
an energy conserving mode by means of junctions and nodes.
Fig. 3 shows how to generate the bond-graph from a physical
model.

X(t) A (P ) X(t) +B(P ) U(t)

=
(8)
Y(t) C(p ) X(t) +D (P ) U (t)
=

where X is the state vector, U is the input vector, Y is the Detennine the system physical domain and identify basic elements
output vector, A is the state matrix, B is the input matrix, C is like (e.g. resistors (R), inductors (I), ...).
the output matrix, and D is the feed forward matrix.
Any dynamical system can be completely characterized by
its transfer matrix G. The transfer function for this model, (8), Give a unique name of the identified elements in the previous step.

is given by:
Identify reference effort (voltage in electrical domain).
(9)

In this approach, the transfer functions are written in a Identify all other efforts with different names.
canonical form, common factors in numerator and denominator
are cancelled and the transfer function is simplified so that the
Identify all effort/flows differences needed to connect the ports of the
coefficients of the higher power of s in the denominator is elements.
always one. After this simplification, all the transfer
coefficients are often referred to as moment invariants. The t
identifiable parameters are the parameters that can be uniquely Construct the effort differences using a I -junction and flow difference
deduced from the coefficients of the transfer function matrix with O -junction
[20]. If it is not possible to uniquely determine the parameters
from the transfer function coefficients, it is essential to re­
Connect the ports of all elements obtained in step with 0 and 1-
arrange or to use another model [16, 18].
junctions for corresponding efforts and flows differences.

B. Bond-Graph Approach
Bond graph maps the power flow through a system and
describe the relationships between the conjugate variables
I Simply the resulted graph.
I
(voltage and current in electrical domain) in each branch of the [ End I
system. The graphical nature of the method enables the
characteristics of the model to be easily visualized and to Fig.3 How to generate a bond-graph model from a physical model.

determine whether or not the model is appropriate for the

parameter identification process [21].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Bond graphs have a concept called causality that indicates TABLE I. Numerical example of different parameter sets of the IM
the direction of the effort and flow for each bond of the power
Parameters Set 1 Set 2 Set3
flow diagram and identifies the causal relationships between all
variables. For each bond, causality is identified by the causal R, 7.987959 n 8.999628 n 4.998228 n
stroke (end-bar) which is independent of the power flow
R, 7.193455 n 2.999839 n 2.091855 n
direction. The effort information moves toward the causal
stroke and the flow infonnation moves away from it. At 0- I" 0.011419 H 0.137927 H 0.149678 H
junction, one of the bonds sets the effort for the others.
I" 0.048195 H 3.2IE-03 H 1.10E-02 H
Consequently, only one causal stroke is on the O-junction,
while the others are away from it. At I-junction, one bond sets L/II 0.355336 H 0.230314 H 0.221085 H
the flow; indicates that only one bond has the causal stroke
IZ,ql 115.63 n 115.82 n 115.22 n
away from the I-junction, while the others are on it.
LZeq 80.870 80.390 80.840

IV. IDENTIFIABILITY ANALYSIS OF 1M T-MODEL

In this section, the identifiability of the T-model of the 1M B. Bond-Graph Approach
is investigated using the two aforementioned discussed Fig. 4 shows the bond-graph of the T-model. The half
approaches. arrows show the direction of power flow. The causal strokes
are set in accordance with the procedure discussed above. For
A. The Transfer Function Approach example, at I-junction, the effort (vs) of source SE moves
towards its causal stroke while the flow ( is ) moves away from
Mathematically, the transfer function of the T-model shown
its causal stroke. The inductor element imposes flow, hence
in Fig. 1 is given by the admittance (G(s) = J(s)/V(s) = lIZeq)'
can be modeled as a source with a causal stroke at the element
The input impedance of this model given by:
side. For a resistive element, causal stroke can go on both
2 directions in such a way to satisfy the junction at the other end
p sa + PS b + !X + d of the bond. For a proper causal completion, the causal strokes
(1 0)
for Rs and Rr are set on the near of I-junctions.
Zeq ( p, s)
(psb / d + 1)
=

It is essential that one bond imposes an effort on each 0-

where p=jws , and a, b, c and d are functions of the five
electrical parameters that can be obtained from the following
expressions:
a 'Ir Ols + Lm ) + '15 Lm ' b
Rs Olr + Lm )
Rr
= =
junction (i.e. one causal stroke is on the O-junction). This has
not been realized in the bond graph of the T-model shown in
Fig. 4. With such a causality conflict, it is not possible to
construct a proper bond-graph for the circuit that can be used in
parameter identification.
Rr

(11)
c =
'Is + Lm, d Rs = V. IDENTIFIABILITY ANALYSIS OF 1M INVERSE r-MODEL

Similar to the T-model, the identifiability of the inverse r­

Taking Laplace transfonns:
model is tested using the two techniques (the transfer function
and bong-graph).
G(s)
_1_ (b / ad)s + (1/ sa) (1 2)
2
+ (sb + c ) / sa + d / sa
= =

Ze q S A. The Transfer Function Approach

The input impedance of the inverse r -model in Fig. 2 as a
Although the T-model has five physical parameters, only
function of the slip s is given by:
four different coefficients (a, b, c and d) can be uniquely
2
detennined from the input/output measurements defined by
Z �q ( p, s )
p s + psa] / b] + !X] + aId] (13)
G(s). Different combination for a, b, c, and d will give the =

same input-output relation for any slip and supply frequency. psi bl +dl

Any parameter can be expressed by other parameters is not
identifiable and vice versa. Thus, an infinite number of
equivalent circuits of the T-model which are theoretically
equivalent if the external measurements are used exist.
where p=jw" and ai, bl, CI and dl are functions of the four
electrical parameters of the model and they can be obtained
from the following expressions:

R : Rs R,.
R:--
Table I provides a numerical example of this situation
where different parameter sets of T-model give the same total
i s

L
Causality
impedance (Zeq). The table is obtained using a nonlinear curve­ is c��!�ict. i,.
v is '. i,.
.

fitting technique in conjunction with measured steady-state

isl ; {' li,.

SE: Vs �l� O � l
"

machine current, voltage and speed based on a 1.1 kW three­

phase induction 1M. Although the parameters are totally is

different, the table shows a very good agreement between the

total impedance of the three sets at a machine speed of 1491 I: lis I: Lm I: It,.
rpm (slip of 0.006). Fig. 4. T-model causal bond graph.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 al =
Rs' bl I;s,
=
R:Rs
(14)
c, =
R;. (l;s +Lm) /l;sLm' d, =
R� /1;sLm

The transfer function of this model is given by:

Ss /bl +dl
G(s) 1/Z�q 2 (15)
S +Ssal /bl +SCI +al dl
= =

S
I://s' I:Lm'
With inverse f-model, there are four coefficients of G(s) Fig. 5. Bond-graph of IM Inverse r-equivalent circuit.
that can be uniquely determined if the external measurements
are used. Model parameters can then be uniquely identified
from these coefficients by using (14).

B. Bond-Graph Approach
To avoid the causality conflict occurred in the bond graph
of the T-model, the stator leakage inductance is combined
together with that of the rotor as suggested in [12]. Fig. 5
shows the bond graph of the inverse f-model where the
parameter redundancy has been removed and a proper bond
graph is obtained. I:Lm" I:ltr"
Fig.6. Bond-graph of IM r-equivalent circuit.
VI. IDENTIFIABILITY ANALYSIS OF 1M f-MODEL
In this section, the structural identifiability of the f-model VII. DISCUSSIONS
is tested using the two aforementioned techniques.
When the induction motor has been already manufactured,
its parameters are determined based on the data measured from
A. The Transfer Function Approach
the motor. Standard IEEE tests including No-load, DC, and
The input impedance of the f-model in Fig. 3 as a function locked rotor are made and the measurements of the current,
of the slip s is given by: voltage, and power at the stator terminals are collected [22].
2 However, it should be pointed out that it is impossible to
Z"eq ( p, s) =
p s +PSa2 +b2c2
(16) determine I,s and I'r separately from the measurements at the
rvl 2 +C2 stator terminals. One way to determine them separately is to
f-'U
assume that to be equal, which is not always the true (e.g.
where p=jw" and a2, b], C2 and d2 are functions of the four faulty motor) and, thus based on their values other parameter
electrical parameters of the model and they can be obtained values might change in order to produce the same performance
from the following expressions: (e.g. total impedance). On the other hand, for the inverse f­
and f-models, circuit parameters can be uniquely calculated
_ RsL�, +R; Rs +L�, R; /s b
a2 - , 2 - Rs' based on the standard IEEE tests without any assumptions.
L"ml'r" (17)
As can be seen from T-model, Equation (1), the three
c2 =
R; /l;�L�" d2 (L�, +l;� )/l;�L�,
= dependent inductances (/,,, I'r and Lm) can be described only
by two independent inductances and, thus the 1M can be
modelled with an infmite of different parameter sets. For
The transfer function of this model is given by:
inverse f- and f-models, however, the inductances can be
Sd2 +c2 independently modelled as these models have only two
G(s) 11 Z�q = =
2 (18) dependent inductances, Equations (2) and (4).
S s +Ssa2 +b2c2
In this paper, structural identifiability of T-, inverse f- and
With f-model, there are four coefficients of G(s) that can f-models of the 1M is investigated using the transfer function
be determined if the external measurements are used. Model and bond graph. The transfer function of the T-model has only
parameters can then be uniquely identified from these four coefficients which are functions of the five unknown
coefficients by using (17). electrical parameters of the model. Although the values of the
four coefficients can be estimated from the experimental
B. Bond-Graph Approach measurements, these four coefficients are not sufficient to
In this model, the stator leakage inductance is combined mathematically calculate the model parameters (five
together with that of the rotor as suggested to eliminate the unknowns). In contrast, the transfer functions of both the
conflict in the T-model in [6]. Fig. 6 shows the bond graph of inverse f- and f-models have four coefficients which are equal
the f-model where the parameter redundancy has been to the number of the unknown parameters. Model parameters
removed and a proper bond graph is obtained. can then be uniquely identified from these coefficients by using
(14) and (17) respectively. This means that both inverse f- and

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
f-models are identifiable while the T-model is non-identifiable
according to the transfer function approach.
The bond graph representation of the T-model shows a
causality conflict at the O-junction. Accordingly, this model is
not an appropriate model for parameter identification from
external measurements. No such a causality conflict occurs in
the bond graph representation of the inverse f- and f-models.
In fact, this conflict is eliminated by combining the dependent
storage element together in the equivalent circuit.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a study of structural identifiability of
three steady-state models (T-, inverse f- and f-equivalent
circuits) of the induction motors. The identifiability of the three
models has been investigated using the transfer function and
bond graph as structural identifiability approaches. Results
show that the induction machine T-model is non-identifiable
whilst both the inverse T- and T-models are.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A. M. Alturas would like to acknowledge the Libyan
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and
Misurata University for sponsoring his Ph.D. project.
REFERENCES
[I] M. Ojaghi, and S. Nasiri, "Modeling Eccentric Squirrel-Cage Induction
Motors With Slotting Effect and Saturable Teeth Reluctances," iEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 29,no. 3, pp. 619-627,2014.
[2] L. Monjo, H. Kojooyan-Jafari, F. Corcoles et al., "Squirrel-Cage
Induction Motor Parameter Estimation Using a Variable Frequency
Test," iEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. PP,no. 99,pp. 1-8,2014.
[3] L. Whei-Min, S. Tzu-Jung, and W. Rong-Ching, "Parameter
Identification of Induction Machine With a Starting No-Load Low­
Voltage Test," iEEE Trans. ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. I, pp. 352-360,
2012.
[4] A. M. N. Lima, C. B. Jacobina, and E. B. de Souza Filho, "Nonlinear
parameter estimation of steady-state induction machine models," iEEE
Trans. ind. Electron., vol. 44,no. 3,pp. 390-397,1997.
[5] C. Moons, and B. D. Moor, "Parameter identification of induction
motor drives," Automatica, vol. 31,no. 8,pp. 1137-1147, 1995.
[61 S. Yamamura, AC Motors For High-Peiformance Applications:
Analysis and Control, New York,USA: Marcel Dekker,Inc,1986.
[71 B.-K. Choi, and H.-D. Chiang, "On the Local Identifiability of Load
Model Parameters in Measurement-based Approach," Journal of
Electrical Engineering & Technology, vol. 4,no. 2,pp. 149-158,2009.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on December 01,2022 at 12:09:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[8] A. Raue, C. Kreutz, T. Maiwald, 1. Bachmann, M. Schilling, U.
KlingmOller, and 1. Timmer, "Structural and practical identifiability
analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the
profile likelihood," Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 1923-1929,
2014.
[9] A. M. Alturas, S. M. Gadoue, B. Zahawi, and M. A. Elgendy, "On the
Identifiability of Steady-State Induction Machine Models Using
External Measurements," iEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. PP, no.
99,pp. 1-9,2015.
[10] S. Peilin, T. Jun, W. Shuang, and Z. Ning, "Identifiability Analysis of
Local Oscillator Phase Self-Calibration Based on Hybrid Cramer-Rao
Bound in MIMO Radar," iEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 22,
pp. 6016-6031,2014.
[11] C. Schranz, P. D. Docherty,C. Yeong Shiong, J. G. Chase, Mo, x, and
K. lIer, "Structural Identifiability and Practical Applicability of an
Alveolar Recruitment Model for ARDS Patients," iEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng., vol. 59,no. 12,pp. 3396-3404,2012.
[12] P. Vaclavek, P. Blaha, and I. Herman, "AC Drive Observability
Analysis," iEEE Trans. ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 3047-3059,
2013.
[13] E. Laroche,and M. Boutayeb,"Identification of the Induction Motor in
Sinusoidal Mode," iEEE Trans. energy Convers., vol. 25,no. I, pp. 11-
19,2010.
[14] M. Milanese, and G. P. Molino, "Structural identifiability of
compartmental models and pathophysiological information from the
kinetics of drugs," Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 26,no. 1-2, pp. 175-
190,1975.
[15] S. Y. A. Cheung, O. Majid, J. W. T. Yates, and L. Aarons, "Structural
identifiability analysis and reparameterisation (parameter reduction) of
a cardiovascular feedback model," European Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 46,no. 4,pp. 259-271,2012.
[16] C. Cobelli, and G. Romanin-Jacur, "Controllability, Observability and
Structural Identifiability of Multi Input and Multi Output Biological
Compartmental Systems," iEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. BME-23,
no. 2,pp. 93-100,1976.
[17] 1. 1. DrSTEFANO, "On the Relationships Between Structural
Identifiability and the Controllability, Observability Properties," iEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr, vol. AC-22,no. 4,pp. 652,1975.
[18] M. Hajek, "A contribution to the parameter estimation of a certain class
of dynamical systems," Kybernetika, vol. 8,no. 2,pp. 165-173,1972.
[19] J. F. Broenik, " Introduction to physical systems modelling with bond
graphs," SiE Whitebook on Simulation methodologies. University of
Twente,1999.
[20] A. Raue, C. Kreutz, T. Maiwald, Klingmu, x, U. lIer, and 1. Timmer,
"Addressing parameter identifiability by model-based
experimentation," Systems Biology, iET, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 120-130,
2011.
[21] P. J. Gawthrop, and G. P. Bevan, "Bond-graph modeling," iEEE
Control. Syst. Mag., vol. 27,no. 2,pp. 24-45,2007.
[22] "IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators," iEEE Std 112-2004 (Revision of iEEE Std 112-1996), pp.
0_1-79,2004.