2011 3rd Conference on Data Mining and Optimization (DMO)

28-29 June 2011, Selangor, Malaysia

Comparison of Various Wiener Model Identification

Approach in Modelling Nonlinear Process
Imam Mujahidin Iqbal1, Norashid Aziz2
School of Chemical Engineering, Engineering Campus
Universiti Sains Malaysia,Seri Ampangan
14300 Nibong Tebal, Seberang Perai Selatan
Penang, Malaysia.
2
1
el_sheiryu@yahoo.com, chnaziz@eng.usm.my
Abstract - An accurate and simple model is essential to
implement a model based controller. Wiener model is one of the
simplest nonlinear models that can represent any nonlinear
process. However, in Wiener Model development, there are
several identification approaches available and need to be
selected to produce the most accurate model. In this work, the
nonlinear linear approach, the linear nonlinear approach,
and the simultaneous approach are compared in identification
of the Wiener model for nonlinear pH neutralization process.
The parameters of linear block and the inverse of nonlinear
block were obtained from several sets of data that are
generated. These approaches are then compared in terms of
model accuracy, calculation time, data requirement, and their
flexibility.
Keywords - Wiener model identification, Least-square algorithm,
pH neutralization process, Laguerre filter model
I.

INTRODUCTION

All processes are nonlinear, but their degree of nonlinearity

are varies [1]. Some processes possess low level
nonlinearity, while other processes possess medium to high
level nonlinearity. This nonlinearity state is caused by
several factors such as large disturbance changes, saturation
condition and wide range operating condition. Process with
low level nonlinearity can be approximated with linear
model, but a moderate or highly nonlinear process can only
be approximated with nonlinear model.
There are many nonlinear models available for
modelling of nonlinear process. The selection of this model
is strongly depending on the purpose of the model is
developed. This work emphasizes on identification of a
model for control implementation, thus it should be simple
but accurate to represent the process.
Wiener model is one of the simplest models available to
represent various nonlinear processes. Several example of
Wiener model application can be found in the relevant
literatures [2-5].
Many approaches have been suggested for Wiener
model identification, such as: Blind approach [6], Frequency
domain approach [7], Support vector approach [8] and
Maximum-likelihood approach [9]. Several identification
methods for Wiener model that consist of specific model
also have been developed. Westwick and Verhaegen [10]

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

delevoped an identification method for state-space Wiener

model, Lovera et al. [11] extended this method into recursive
form, Hu and Chen [12] have also developed another
recursive algorithm, Voros [13] and Kozek and Sinanovic
[14] developed identification method for Wiener model
which nonlinearity is approached using piecewise linear
model, while Gomez and Baeyens [15] developed
identification method for orthonormal bases Wiener model.
Tang et al. [16] proposed particle swarm optimization (PSO)
as the optimization algorithm to obtain the parameters of
wiener model. Relay bases identification method also
suggested in several works [17, 18].
Generally, the identification of Wiener model can be
grouped into three approaches [5, 19]:
1. N-L approach. This approach identifies the static
nonlinearity parameters from the steady state data,
and then the linear dynamic parameters are obtained
from dynamic data.
2. L-N approach. In this approach, the parameters of
linear dynamic block are identified, which is then
used to generate the intermediate signal, and then
the static nonlinearity is calculated.
3. Simultaneous approach. This is the approach where
the parameters for both blocks are obtained at the
same time.
In this work, a comparison study of those approaches is
performed. Calculation time, model accuracy, flexibility and
data requirement are used as the comparison basis. The
Wiener identification approaches are used to extract the
Wiener model parameters from pH neutralization process.
The advantages and disadvantages for each approach are also
discussed.
II.

IDENTIFICATION ALGORITHM

A. Problem formulation
The structure of Wiener model is given in Fig 1 where
the linear dynamic block is followed by nonlinear static
is
block. and is the input and output of wiener model.
the intermediate variable.

134

(4)
The algorithm for each approach will be explained in the
next section.
B. Simultaneous approach

Fig 1. Wiener Model

The simultaneous identification approach used here is

adopted from Gomez and Baeyens [15]. With assumption
1 the parameters of both blocks ( , ) can be obtained
at the same time. The approach summary is outlined as
follows.
From the identification structure in Fig 2 the following
relationship is obtained
(5)

Fig 2. Structure of linear block and inverse of

nonlinear block identification
In this work, the aim of the identification algorithm is to
find the linear block and the inverse of the nonlinear block
parameters (instead of the nonlinear block itself). In control
application the inverse of linear block is used to remove the
nonlinearity of the process and thus reduce the nonlinear
control problem into linear control problem. Considering the
following parameterization for the linear block model and
the inverse of nonlinear block model:

which is equal with

(6)
1 then Eq 6 can be rearranged

Since it is assumed that

into

1) Linear block

(7)

The linear block is represented by Laguerre filter model.

(1)

This is a linear regression form. Defining

,

Where
1

(2)

is the th order of Laguerre filter,

the
Here
number of Laguerre filter used in the model,
the
Laguerre filter parameter which value is between -1 and
1, and is the sampling time.
2) Inverse of nonlinear block
Polynomials model order
inverse of nonlinear block

,,

is selected to represent the

,,
,,

(8)
,

(9)

,,

Eq 7 can be written as
(10)
Now, by minimizing a quadratic criterion on the prediction
(i.e., the least square estimate), an
errors
estimates of can be calculated from pairs of data. The
well known solution for this estimation is given by

(3)

(11)

,,

(12)

where
and
are the parameters to be identified. In this
work, to simplify the identification problem, the Laguerre
model parameter
is assumed to be known instead of
finding it through optimization. The value of is obtained
from the following equation.

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

,,

(13)

Then, the parameters

(
1,2, , ) and
(
2,3, , ) can be calculated by partitioning the estimate
according to the definition of in (8).

135

Then the estimate

equation

C. N-L approach
In this approach and the L-N approach, both blocks
parameters are identified separately. Therefore, before
explaining the N-L identification algorithm, the method to
identify both blocks parameters is explained.
and
data is available.
Considering a set of
According to Fig 2, its dynamic relationship can be written
as
(14)
or equivalent with
(15)

of

is calculated from the following

(27)

,,

(28)

with

In the N-L approach, the inverse of nonlinear block is

identified first. By taking assumption that the gain of linear
block is unity, a set of steady-state data ( , ) is used as
identification data. The identified inverse of nonlinear block
is then used to convert a set of dynamic data ( , ) into
pairs of intermediate variable and output variable ( , ).
The resulting data is then used to identify the linear dynamic
block. The summary of the N-L identification approach is
given in Fig 3.

Defining
,

,,

Start

(16)
,

,,

(17)
Collect a set of steady state data (

Eq 15 can be written as
(18)
This is a linear regression problem. By least square
estimation, the estimate of linear block parameters can
be calculated from the following equation

(19)

,,

(20)

Assume the linear block gain equal to 1 (

Identify the inverse of nonlinear block parameters

and
data
using Eq 26 from the set
Collect a set of dynamic data (

Where
,

,,

(21)

The polynomials fitting is also done in the similar

manner with the simultaneous identification and linear block
and
is available for
identification. Considering a set of
identification. Now, from Fig 2 its relationship is

Calculate

by converting
using the inverse of
nonlinear block

Identify the linear block parameters using Eq 18 from

and
data
the set of

(22)
Substituting Eq22 in Eq 3

Fig 3. N-L approach identification algorithm.

(23)

or in linear regression form

(24)
Where
,
,

,,

(25)

,,

(26)

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

End

D. L-N Approach
The identification algorithm for this approach is started
by identifying the linear block parameters from the inputoutput data. The linear block is then used to generate the
intermediate variable from the input data. Then the inverse
of nonlinear block is identified from pairs of intermediate
variable and output variable. Fig 4 summarized the
identification procedure for this approach.

136

1
Collect a set of dynamic data (

)
1

Set
,

10

Identify the linear block parameters using Eq 18 from

and
data
the set of
Calculated

from

using the linear block

End
Fig 4. L-N approach identification algorithm.
III. SIMULATION RESULTS

Fig 5. Schematic diagram of pH neutralization process

[20, 21]
Fig 5 shows the schematic diagram of the neutralization
process under consideration. An adjustable base (NaOH)
stream is mixed with an unmeasured buffer (NaHCO3)
stream and a constant acid (HNO3) stream in a tank with
constant volume, . The process equations are given by
(29)
,

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

(33)

10
1 2
1 10

(34)
10

(35)
10

TABLE I
NOMINAL VALUES

All the approaches are tested on identification of a

nonlinear process. The considered nonlinear process is pH
neutralization process which commonly used in several
control and identification study [20, 21].

The base, buffer, and acid flowrate were denote as ,

, and
respectively. Therefore the input-output of
Wiener model is the base flowrate and the pH of the effluent
solution ( ). The constant and nominal value for each
variable are given in table I.
Before the beginning of data generation stage, several
step tests are introduced into the process by changing the
base flowrate. The purpose of this test is to observe the
nonlinearity of the process and measure the settling and
process time constant. Fig 6 shows the step tests conducted.
From the figure, it is shows that the process reaches steady
state around 600 seconds, and the time constant is varies
from 80 to 122 seconds.

Identify the inverse of nonlinear block parameters

and
data
using Eq 26 from the set

(32)

Start

(30)
(31)

15.55
0.55
16.6
4.32 10
3.05 10
3 10
3 10

5.28 10
0
3 10
5 10
7
2900
6.35
10.25

A set of steady state data is collected for base flowrate

range of 0 ml/s to 30 ml/s with interval 1 ml/s. Two sets of
dynamic data are generated for identification and validation
as shown in Fig 7. The dynamic data for identification is
generated by exciting the base flowrate using Generalized
Multiple Level (GMN) signal with 0 ml/s and 30 ml/s as the
minimum and maximum value respectively. The number of
level is 12. The signal value is changed every 50 seconds.
While the validation data is generated using random number
with changing time 30 seconds. Each set of dynamic data
consist of 600 data with sampling time 10 seconds. Then
each approach is used to identify the Wiener model from the
obtained data.
In this comparison study, several terms is used as the
performance indicator of the identification approach. They
are the model accuracy, the calculation time, the data
required, and the identification approach flexibility. The
calculated time is based on identification performed using
2.00 GHz processor with 3.00 GB of RAM. The model
accuracy is measured by Variance Accounted For (VAF)
criterion. The accuracy of the model is determined by the
number of parameters (N and P) used inside the model. Thus

137

it is important to select its appropriate value. If its value is

too big then the model is over parameterized. On other hand,
the accuracy of the model is low when the number of
parameters is too small. To help selecting the value of N and
P, several simulations with different value of N and P is
performed for each approach.
9.5
9
u1+10%
u1-10%
u1+5%
u1-5%

8.5

7.5
7
6.5
6

200

400

600

800

TABLE II
N-L APPROACH SIMULATION RESULTS
R2
N
R2
0.930912
1
0.990227
0.978818
2
0.990232
0.983149
3
0.990253
0.999556
4
0.990314
0.999570
5
0.990346
0.999583

P
2
3
4
5
6
7

pH

value. The optimum value of N is depending on the dynamic

of the process. Table II also contains several results for
identification of linear block Wiener model from the
converted dynamic data. The result shows that the value of N
greater than 1 only give slightly more accurate model, thus N
= 1 is chosen as the optimum value. The calculation time for
N-L approach is approximately 0.0038 s. The Laguerre filter
order parameters from N-L identification approach for
various value of N is given in Table III and The N-L
identification result at optimum value of P and N is
presented in Fig 8.

1000

TABLE III
LAGUERRE FILTER ORDER PARAMETERS FROM
N-L IDENTIFICATION APPROACH

t(s)

y deviation

u1 deviation

Fig 6. Step-test result

20

Order

N=1

N=2

N=3

N=4

N=5

1st

7.503
x10-2

7.504
x10-2
-1.832
x10-4

7.516
x10-2
-2.005
x10-4
4.006
x10-4

7.520
x10-2
7.347
x10-6
3.905
x10-4
6.794
x10-4

7.530
x10-2
5.240
x10-7
5.667
x10-4
6.743
x10-4
5.132
x10-4

-20

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

3rd

4th

0
-5

2nd

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

5th

(a)
10

-20

-10

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

Data
Model (R2 = 0.990227)

6000

-20

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

15

6000

Data
Model (R2 = 0.984401)

10

5000

5
v

y deviation

u1 deviation

20

20

-5

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

-5
-10
0

(b)
Fig 7. (a) Input (top) output (bottom) of
identification data, (b) input (top) output (bottom) of
validation data.
In nonlinear-linear approach, the steady-state data is
fitted with different value of P and the result is summarized
in table II. It can be seen that the accuracy of the model
starts to saturate at P = 5, thus it is selected as the optimum

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

Fig 8. N-L approach identification (Top) and

validation (Bottom) result for P = 5 and N = 1
P has the same effect in the L-N approach. The R2 value
rise as the P increase and its difference is relatively small for
P greater than 5. But the effect of N is totally different with
the N-L approach result. Increasing the order of linear block
in the linear block identification reduce the Wiener model

138

accuracy. The step test result in Fig 6 showed that the pH

neutralization process has similar response with a first order
process and the order of Laguerre filter model can be
interpreted as the order of the process, thus the Laguerre
model with order more than 1 is over parameterized. Table
III showed that the excess parameters value is not significant
compared with the parameter of the first order Laguerre
filter. In the N-L approach the Laguerre filter model was
fitted using a linearized process data while in the L-N
approach the linear model was forced to fit the nonlinear
process. Therefore when the Laguerre model is over
parameterized the overall Wiener model accuracy is
decrease. The result for L-N approach is presented in Table
IV and Fig 9. The calculation of Wiener model parameters at
N = 1 and P = 5 are completed in approximately 0.0044 s.

steady-state relationships (Fig 11). In term of flexibility of

the approach, the separate approaches (N-L and L-N
approaches) are more flexible than the simultaneous
approach since each block can be modified separately. The
summary of the result of identification study using various
approaches is tabulated in Table VI.
TABLE V
SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH SIMULATION RESULTS
P
N=1
N=2
N=3
4
5
6

TABLE IV
L-N APPROACH SIMULATION RESULTS
P
N=1
N=2
N=3
4
5
6

0.972231
0.995213
0.997605

0.971633
0.994002
0.996528

0.956722
0.994871
0.997506

0.956644
0.994877
0.997506

0.956739
0.994923
0.997532

Data

0.971615
0.993994
0.996522

-5

Model (R2 = 0.994871)

0

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

Data

Model (R2 = 0.989796)

10

-5

0
-5

Data
Model (R2 = 0.995213)

-10
0

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

10

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

Fig 10. Simultaneous approach identification (Top)

and validation (Bottom) result for P = 5 and N = 1

Data
Model (R2 = 0.990227)

15

5
v

Data
NL (R2 = 0.999506)

10

LN (R2 = 0.996273)
Simultaneous (R2 = 0.996087)

-5
1000

2000

3000
t(s)

4000

5000

6000

Fig 9. L-N approach identification (Top) and

validation (Bottom) result for P = 5 and N = 1
The N value gives various effects in simultaneous
approach. At P = 4 and P = 6, the relationship between N and
R2 is a curve with R2 minimum at N = 2. While at P = 5, the
accuracy of the model is increase as N increase. The effect of
P is similar with previous approaches. The optimum values
of P and N in the simultaneous approach also 5 and 1
respectively (see Table V). The linear block and inverse of
nonlinear block parameters are obtained after 0.0045 s.
Among all approaches used, the L-N approach produces
the most accurate model, followed by the simultaneous
approach and N-L approach. The calculation time of each
approach is not varies significantly. In term of data
requirement, the N-L approach is less favoured since it
requires a set of steady-state data and a set of dynamic data
while the other approaches only required a set of dynamic
data to identify the linear block and the inverse of nonlinear
block of Wiener model. However, the model developed from
the N-L approach has the highest accuracy in describing the

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

u1 deviation

-5

-10

-15

-20
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1
0
y deviation

Fig 11. Comparison of the model steady-state

accuracy.
IV. CONCLUSION

In this work, a comparison study of various Wiener model

identification approach was performed. The approaches were
compared in identification of nonlinear process i.e. a
neutralization process. From the result, the N-L approach
found to be the best choice for identification since it could
produce a model with the highest accuracy from a set of
dynamic data. However, when the model needs to represent
the steady-state relationships accurately, the N-L approach is

139

TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISON STUDY
Calculation time (s)
Data requirement

Identification
approach
L-N

Model accuracy
0.995213

0.0044

Dynamic

Flexible

N-L

0.990227

0.0038

Steady-state and Dynamic

Flexible

Simultaneous

0.994871

0.0045

Dynamic

Not flexible

the appropriate choice. For a process with low nonlinearity,

the simultaneous approach should be used to obtain the
parameters of linear block and inverse of nonlinear block in
one time.

[11].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The financial support from Universiti Sains Malaysia

through Research University (RU) fund and Graduate
Assistant to the first author are greatly acknowledged.

[12].
[13].

REFERENCES

[1].

S. J. Norquay, A. Palazoglu, and J. Romagnoli,

"Model predictive control based on Wiener models,"
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 53, pp. 75-84,
1998.
[2]. R. K. Al Seyab and Y. Cao, "Nonlinear model
predictive control for the ALSTOM gasifier," Journal
of Process Control, vol. 16, pp. 795-808, 2006.
[3]. H. H. J. Bloemen, C. T. Chou, T. J. J. van den Boom,
V. Verdult, M. Verhaegen, and T. C. Backx, "Wiener
model identification and predictive control for dual
composition control of a distillation column," Journal
of Process Control, vol. 11, pp. 601-620, 2001.
[4]. S. Oblak and I. Skrjanc, "Continuous-time Wienermodel predictive control of a pH process based on a
PWL approximation," Chemical Engineering Science,
vol. 65, pp. 1720-1728, 2009.
[5]. G. Shafiee, M. M. Arefi, M. R. Jahed-Motlagh, and A.
A. Jalali, "Nonlinear predictive control of a
polymerization reactor based on piecewise linear
Wiener model," Chemical Engineering Journal, vol.
143, pp. 282-292, 2008.
[6]. E.-W. Bai, "A blind approach to the HammersteinWiener model identification," Automatica, vol. 38,
pp. 967-979, 2002.
[7]. E.-W. Bai, "Frequency domain identification of
Wiener models," Automatica, vol. 39, pp. 1521-1530,
2003.
[8]. S. Ttterman and H. T. Toivonen, "Support vector
method for identification of Wiener models," Journal
of Process Control, vol. 19, pp. 1174-1181, 2009.
[9]. A. Hagenblad, L. Ljung, and A. Wills, "Maximum
likelihood identification of Wiener models,"
Automatica, vol. 44, pp. 2697-2705, 2008.
[10]. D. Westwick and M. Verhaegen, "Identifying MIMO
Wiener systems using subspace model identification

978-1-61284-212-7/11/$26.002011 IEEE

[14].

[15].

[16].

[17].

[18].
[19].

[20].

[21].

Flexibility

methods," Signal Processing, vol. 52, pp. 235-258,

1996.
M. Lovera, T. Gustafsson, and M. Verhaegen,
"Recursive subspace identification of linear and nonlinear Wiener state-space models," Automatica, vol.
36, pp. 1639-1650, 2000.
X.-L. Hu and H.-F. Chen, "Strong consistence of
recursive identification for Wiener systems,"
Automatica, vol. 41, pp. 1905-1916, 2005.
J. Vrs, "Parameter identification of Wiener systems
with multisegment piecewise-linear nonlinearities,"
Systems & Control Letters, vol. 56, pp. 99-105, 2007
M. Kozek and S. Sinanovic, "Identification of Wiener
models using optimal local linear models," Simulation
Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 16, pp. 10551066, 2008.
J. C. Gmez and E. Baeyens, "Identification of blockoriented nonlinear systems using orthonormal bases,"
Journal of Process Control, vol. 14, pp. 685-697,
2004.
Y. Tang, L. Qiao, and X. Guan, "Identification of
Wiener model using step signals and particle swarm
optimization," Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
37, pp. 3398-3404, 2009.
U. Mehta and S. Majhi, "Identification of a class of
Wiener and Hammerstein-type nonlinear processes
with monotonic static gains," ISA Transactions, vol.
49, pp. 501-509, 2010.
S. W. Sung and J. Lee, "Modeling and control of
Wiener-type processes," Chemical Engineering
Science, vol. 59, pp. 1515-1521, 2004.
A. L. Cervantes, O. E. Agamennoni, and J. L.
Figueroa, "A nonlinear model predictive control
system based on Wiener piecewise linear models,"
Journal of Process Control, vol. 13, pp. 655-666,
2003.
S. Mahmoodi, J. Poshtan, M. R. Jahed-Motlagh, and
A. Montazeri, "Nonlinear model predictive control of
a pH neutralization process based on Wiener-Laguerre
model," Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 146, pp.
328-337, 2009.
Z. Shahraeini, N. Daneshpour, M. R. J. Motlagh, and
J. Poshtan, "A Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
System Based on Wiener Model," in Control,
Automation, Robotics and Vision, 2006. ICARCV
'06. 9th International Conference on, 2006, pp. 1-6.

140