17th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation

Makedonia Palace, Thessaloniki, Greece

June 24 - 26, 2009

Parametric Modelling of Flexible Plate Structures Using Real-Coded

Genetic Algorithms
S. Julai, Member, IEEE and M. O. Tokhi, Senior Member, IEEE
Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering
The University of Sheffield
Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD, United Kingdom
s.julai@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract This paper presents parametric modelling of
flexible plate structures using real-coded genetic algorithms
(RCGA). The global optimization technique of RCGA is utilized
to obtain a dynamic model of a flexible plate structure based on
one-step-ahead (OSA) prediction. The structure is subjected to
three different disturbance signal types, namely random,
pseudo random binary sequence (PRBS), and finite duration
step. The fitness function for the RCGA optimization is the
mean-squared error (MSE) between the measured and
estimated outputs of the plate. The validation of the algorithm is
presented in both time and frequency domains. The developed
RCGA modelling approach will be used for active vibration
control systems design and development in future work.
Keywords-Real-coded Genetic Algorithms,
identification, flexible plate structures

parametric

I. INTRODUCTION

problems with large search space and requiring high

precision. Larger string length results in more precise
solution and larger population, leading to the increment in
computational cost [5]-[7]. To overcome the difficulties
related to binary representation, a floating-point
representation of parameters as chromosome with real-coded
genetic algorithms (RCGA) is used. All genes in a
chromosome used in RCGA are real numbers. The use of
this floating point representation outperforms binary
representations in real-valued optimization problems because
they are more consistent, precise, and lead to faster
convergence [7]. In RCGA, the length of chromosomes
becomes shorter than those with the equivalent binary
representation. This implies that computer programming for
such algorithms can be easily performed. The tuning
mechanism for mutation and crossover operations is also
performed using floating point numbers instead of long
strings of zeros and ones.

YSTEM identification deals with the problem of building

mathematical models of dynamical systems based on
observed data from the system in either the time or frequency
domain. Modeling and identification techniques help
develop knowledge about a system. They are prerequisites to
many practices in engineering and technology and are
especially important in the field of automatic control.
Estimation of the parameter values involves uncertainties
that are due to limitations of the mathematical models used
to represent the behaviour of the real structure, the presence
of measurement error in the data, and insufficient excitation
and response bandwidth. In model-based control systems
design a good model should capture the most important
dynamic behaviour of the process in realistic conditions
while remaining as simple as possible [1]-[4]

A wide variety of applications using RCGA have been

reportedly in recent years. Chang [8] has applied the RCGA
to the system identification and control for a class of
nonlinear systems; meanwhile Oyama et al. [9] have
developed RCGA for a practical aerodynamic design
optimization of a transonic wing shape for generic transport
where the simulation results confirm that RCGA
outperformed the conventional (binary-coded) GA. In
medical applications, Yan et al. [10] have reported the use of
RCGA in selecting the critical clinical features essential to
the heart disease diagnosis, i.e. medical information of the
patients. RCGA-based method has also been applied to
optimize the goodness of fitness of the data in detecting
cavities in infrared computerized axial tomography (IRCAT) [11].

Genetic algorithms (GA) are search and optimization

technique that is motivated by the principle of natural
evolution. In the traditional GA, all the variables of interest
must first be encoded as binary digits (genes) forming a
string (chromosome).This representation, namely binarycoded genetic algorithms (BCGA) is found to be a robust
search technique avoiding local optima, but the major
drawback is the difficulties faced when it is applied to

Motivated by the aforementioned studies, this paper aims

to present a method of system identification for flexible plate
structures. In the present work, RCGA optimization is used
to minimize the prediction error of the actual plant output
and the model output. The proposed approach uses the
random search capability of RCGA to directly update the
required parameters of the model based on one-step-ahead
(OSA) prediction.

___________________________________________________________
_
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Higher Education,
Malaysia and the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

978-1-4244-4685-8/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

999

clamped edge, e.g. y = a , is w y = a = w / y

I. FLEXIBLE PLATE STRUCTURE

Flexible structure systems are known to demonstrate an
intrinsic property of vibration when subjected to disturbance
forces, leading to component and structural damage. Study
of the natural modes, frequencies and the dynamic behaviour
of flexible plates have received considerable attention due to
the range of applications, including bridge decks, solar
panels, and electronic circuit board design. There is a
growing need for developing suitable modeling and control
strategies for such systems due to the highly non-linear
dynamics of such systems. It is crucial to obtain an accurate
model of a plate structure in order to control the vibration of
the plate efficiently.
Dynamic modeling and simulation of a flexible plate
structure using the finite difference (FD) method have been
reported in [12], where a flat, square plate with all edges
clamped has been considered. The classical dynamic
equation of a thin rectangular plate is developed using partial
differential equation (PDE) derived from [13, 14]:

4w
x

+2

4w
2

x y

4w
y

2w
D t

q
D

(1)

where w is the lateral deflection in the z direction, is the

mass density per unit area, q = q ( x, y ) is the transverse
external force at point ( x, y ) and has dimensions of force
per unit area, 2 w / t 2 is the acceleration in the z direction,

D = [ Eh 3 / 12(1 )] is the flextural rigidity with

representing the Poisson ratio, h the thickness of the plate,
and E the Youngs modulus.
A simulation algorithm characterizing the dynamic
behaviour of the plate is developed through discretisation of
the PDE of the plate into several sections. The linear relation
for the deflection of each section is developed using finite
difference approximations, as follows, where x-axis is
represented with the reference index i, i.e., x = ix , y-axis
with the reference index j, i.e. y = jy , and time, t
represented with a reference index k, i.e. t = kt :

wi , j , k +1 =

Dt 2
20wi , j , k + 8 wi +1, j , k
4xy

] [

+ wi , j +1, k + wi 1, j , k + wi , j 1, k + 2 wi +1, j +1, k + wi 1, j +1, k

+ wi 1, j 1, k + wi +1, j 1, k + wi + 2, j , k + wi , j + 2, k + wi 2, j , k

+ wi , j 2, k + 2wi , j , k wi , j , k 1 +

y=a

= 0 . This

condition need to be satisfied at every nodal point along the

clamped edge within the finite difference formulation [13].
II. REAL-CODED GENETIC ALGORITHMS
GA is computerized search and optimization algorithm based
on the mechanics of natural genetics and natural selection. A
new set of approximations/solutions is created at each
generation, by the process of selecting individuals according
to their level of fitness in the problem domain and breeding
them together using the operators. This process leads to the
evolution of populations of individuals that are better suited
to their environment than the individuals that they were
created from, just as in natural adaptation [15, 16]. In
RCGA, three basic operations are used: selection, crossover,
and mutation [7, 17].
(i) Selection
Selection is an important aspect of evolutionary
computation. It dictates what member of the current
population affects the next population. More fit individuals
are generally given a higher chance to participate in the
recombination process. Stochastic universal sampling (SUS)
provides zero bias and minimum spread. The individuals are
mapped to contiguous segments of a line, such that each
individual's segment is equal in size to its fitness exactly as
in roulette-wheel selection. Here equally spaced pointers are
placed over the line as many as there are individuals to be
selected [18]. After the selection, the parent chromosomes
are combined and mutated to form the offspring
chromosomes.
(ii) Crossover
Let x = ( x1 ,...., x n ) and y = ( y1 ,...., y n ) be the parent strings,
where the generic x i and y i are real variables. In extended
intermediate recombination

z i = xi + i ( y i xi )

i = 1,...., n

(3)

where i is chosen uniform randomly in the interval

[0.25,1.25] . Intermediate recombination is capable of
producing any point within a hypercube slightly larger than
that defined by the parents. Fig. 1 shows the possible area of
offspring after intermediate recombination.

area of possible
offspring

(2)
variable
2

t 2 qi , j

possible offspring
parents

variable 1

where wi , j ,k +1 is the deflection of nodal point ( x i , y j ) of the

plate at time step k + 1 . The boundary condition along a

Figure 1. Possible areas of the offspring after intermediate recombination.

1000

(iii) Mutation
This function takes a vector containing the real
representation of the individuals in the current population,
mutates the individuals with probability p m and returns the
resulting population. The mutation operator is able to
generate most points in the hypercube defined by the
variables of the individual and the range of the mutation, as
in Fig. 2.

Consider the systems input and output at time t

represented by u (t ) and y (t ) , respectively. As shown in
Fig. 3, the system input, u (t ) , is given to both system to be
identified and the model. The difference between the outputs
from the system and its model, i.e. y (t ) and y (t ) will then
be fed into RCGA-optimization to estimate the unknown
parameters for the system model. The mean-squared error
(MSE) of this difference used as a fitness function. This is
defined as

f (e ) =

before mutation

variable
2

after mutation

1
S

( y(i) y (i) )

(4)

i =1

where S represents the number of input/output samples,

y (i ) is the measured output and y (i ) is the calculated model
output.

variable 1
Figure 2. Effect of mutation.

The working principle of RCGA starts when initial

population is generated randomly and the fitness of each
individual is computed. If the optimization criteria are not
satisfied, the least fit individual will be removed from the
population and new chromosomes are selected to be as
parents to crossover and produce new population. Genetic
operators such as crossover and mutation are used to
produce a new population of individuals (offspring) by
manipulating the genes. The objective function is evaluated
and a fitness value will be assigned to each individual.
Individuals are then selected for mating according to their
fitness, and so the process continues through subsequent
generations. The RCGA is terminated when some criteria are
satisfied, e.g., a certain number of generations completed or
when a particular point in the search space is reached [15,
16].

System
input, u(t)

System

Model
Identified
parameters

Estimated
output, y (t )

RCGA
optimization

Figure 3. Block diagram of the RCGA-optimization approach.

After the maximum iteration number has reached, the

estimated parameters will be used to update the system
model, and then the above process will be repeated. Autoregressive with exogenous (ARX) structure is chosen to
model the system [20]. This is expressed as
n

III. PARAMETRIC SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION

y (t ) =

Parameter estimation constitutes a procedure that makes it

possible to adjust a model with a specific structure. For this
purpose, it is necessary to determine the appropriate order
and parameters for the model that best fits inputoutput data
obtained during the experiment. This task can be very time
consuming indeed. It is very important to choose a correct
order for the model, since a lower order may imply that the
model could not adequately describe the real dynamics of the
process, while a higher order could increase model
uncertainties [19]-[21]. For a system with known model
structure but unknown parameters, the parameter
identification problem can be treated as an optimization
problem. The basic idea is to compare the system output with
the model output. The discrepancy between the system and
model outputs is minimized by optimization based on a
fitness function. The fitness function is defined as a measure
of how well the model output fits the measured system
output.

Measured
output, y(t)

i =1

a(i ) y (t i ) +

b( j) u(t j)

(5)

j =0

where a(i) , b(j) are denominator and numerator polynomial

coefficients, n and m are number of coefficients in the
denominator and numerator polynomials, y, u, and y are
measured output, input, and estimated output, respectively.
The order of the transfer function depends on n.
In this work, randomly selected model parameters, i.e.
a1 ,..., a n and b0 ,..., bm are identified for different, arbitrarily
chosen orders to fit to the system by applying the working
mechanism of RCGA as explained above. With the fitness
function in (4), the global search technique of RCGA is
utilized to obtain the best parameters among all attempted
orders for the model.
IV. SIMULATIONS RESULT
An aluminium type plate with specifications given in Table 1
was simulated. The plate was divided into 20 20 sections

1001

and simulation performed with a sampling time of 0.016 sec.

Tests were carried out with different disturbance signal
types, namely random, pseudo random binary sequence
(PRBS), and finite duration step, as shown in Fig. 4, from
t = 0.3 to t = 0.5 sec.
x 10

-7

(a)
2

x 10

-8

(b)
1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.2

0.5

0.5

0.8

-0.5

-0.5

0.6

-1

-1

0.4

-1.5

-1.5

0.2

x 10

(c)

-7

Fig. 5 (b), 6 (b), and 7 (b) show the measured and

predicted responses of the system in the time domain. It is
noted that the two match one another closely. This is further
demonstrated by frequency domain plots of the measured
and estimated outputs, as shown in Fig. 5 (c), 6 (c), and 7
(c), which indicate that the model has successfully captured
the system dynamic with the best model order of 4 for each
of the disturbance signal. This was also confirmed by
correlation tests using 95% confidence bands defined as

Force per unit area (N/m )

-2

0.3 0.4 0.5

-2

0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (sec)

random, PRBS, and finite duration step signals. On the other

hand, BCGA achieved higher MSE level than RCGA,
i.e. 3.006 10 15 , 1.048 10 16 , and 3.833 10 14 at the
maximum generation of 1000, for each of the disturbance
signal. This showed that BCGA needed longer time to
achieve the same level of MSE obtained with RCGA
according to the objective function assigned.

r < 1.96 N , where N is the data length and r is the

0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 4. Type of disturbances (a) random, (b) PRBS,

and (c) finite duration step.

The disturbance source, detection point, and observation

point were arranged at locations (7, 7), (8, 8), and (11, 12).
Here, the system is characterized with the detected signal as
input and observed signal as output. An order 4 was formed
adequate to model the system. The best results for RCGAAVC optimization obtained with 100 individuals in the
maximum generation of 1000, where generation gap was
0.80, and 0.76 and 0.15 for crossover and mutation rates,
respectively.

correlation function, to indicate if the estimated correlations

are significant or not. The correlation functions for all cases
were found to be within that band, indicating an adequate
fitted model. The pole-zero diagrams (Fig. 5 (d), 6 (d), and 7
(d)) show that all poles and zeros lie inside the unit circle,
indicating that the models are stable with the transfer
functions

Figures 5 7 show results of the measured and estimated

output thus obtained with RCGA optimization subjected to
different disturbance signal types. BCGA was also realised
for reasons of comparison at modelling the system.
TABLE I.

- 0.993z 3 - 0.041z 2 + 0.267z - 0.083

z 4 + 0.226z 3 - 0.047z 2 - 0.016z - 0.005

(6)

H p (z) =

- z 3 + 0.007z 2 + 0.208z - 0.161

z - 0.038z 3 + 0.448z 2 - 0.506z + 0.152

(7)

H s ( z) =

- 0.774z 3 - 0.311z 2 + 0.269z - 0.195

z 4 + 0.467z 3 - 0.024z 2 + 0.023z - 0.477

(8)

PARAMETERS OF THE FLEXIBLE PLATE

Parameter

1.0 m
1.0 m

Thickness, T

3.2004 10

Moment of inertia, I

for random, PRBS, and finite duration step disturbances,

respectively.

Value

Length, L
Width, W

5.1924 10

V. CONCLUSIONS

11

kg.m

10

Mass density per area,

2.71 10 kg/m

Youngs Modulus, E

7.11 10 N/m
4 seconds
0.3

Simulation time, t
Poissons ratio,

H r ( z) =

It was observed that the first five dominant modes of the

plate were 10.35 rad/sec, 33.76 rad/sec, 64.94 rad/sec, 81.88
rad/sec, and 99.37 rad/sec. As shown in Fig. 5 (a), 6 (a), and
7 (a), the RCGA achieved the best MSE levels of
8.216 10 16 , 4.503 10 17 , and 6.742 10 16 in the 891st,
860th, and 917th generations, respectively, for modeling using

In this work, the system identification problem has been

formulated as an optimization task where RCGA has been
used to estimate parameters of the flexible plate model so as
to minimize the prediction error between the measured and
estimated outputs at each time step. The vibration modes of
the flexible plate structure have been detected successfully
with the modeling techniques considered in this
investigation. OSA prediction model has been used to
identify the parameters with model validity tests using
correlation tests. RCGA has been shown to outperform
BCGA in minimizing the prediction error, resulting in a
good level of accuracy of the estimated model.

1002

-15

5.5

-16

x 10

2
RCGA optimization
BCGA optimization

5
4.5

RCGA optimization
BCGA optimization

Best RCGA MSE = 8.2158e-016

Best BCGA MSE = 3.0006e-015

Best RCGA MSE = 4.5028e-017

Best BCGA MSE = 1.0488e-016

1.5

3.5

MSE

MSE

x 10

3
2.5

2
1.5
1

0.5

200

400
600
No. of generation

800

1000

200

(a) MSE vs. no. of generation

4
RCGA-predicted
Measured output

1.5

RCGA-predicted
Measured output

2
Deflection (m)

Deflection (m)

x 10

1
0.5
0

1
0

-0.5

-1

-1

-2

-1.5
0

2
Time (sec)

-3
0

(b) Measured and estimated outputs

2
Time (sec)

-2

10

10

-3

10

-4

-5

10

10

-6

50
100
Frequency (rad/sec)

-3

10

150

-4

-5

-6

-7

50
100
Frequency (rad/sec)

150

(c) Spectral density of the outputs

0.5

0.5

Imaginary axis

Imaginary axis

(c) Spectral density of the outputs

-0.5

-1
-1

RCGA-predicted
Measured output

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

10

(b) Measured and estimated outputs

RCGA-predicted
Measured output

10

1000

-7

x 10

10

800

(a) MSE vs. no. of generation

-6

10

400
600
No. of generation

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

-1
-1

Real axis

-0.5

0.5

Real axis

(d) Pole-zero diagram of the predicted model

(d) Pole-zero diagram of the estimated model

Figure 5. The measured and estimated output with RCGA subjected to

random disturbance.

Figure 6. The measured and estimated output with RCGA subjected to

PRBS disturbance.

1003

-14

REFERENCES

x 10

RCGA optimization
BCGA optimization

[1]

Best RCGA MSE = 6.742e-016

Best BCGA MSE = 3.833e-014

MSE

[2]

[3]
2
1

[4]

0
0

200

400
600
No. of generation

800

1000

[5]

(a) MSE vs. no. of generation

-5

2.5

[6]

x 10

RCGA-predicted
Measured output

[7]

Deflection (m)

1.5
1

[8]

0.5
0
-0.5

[9]

-1
-1.5
-2
0

2
Time (sec)

[10]

(b) Measured and estimated outputs

10

-1

[11]
RCGA-predicted
Measured output

Magnitude (dB)

10

10

10

10

-2

[12]
-3

[13]
-4

[14]

-5

50
100
Frequency (rad/sec)

150

(c) Spectral density of the outputs

[15]

[16]
[17]

Imaginary axis

0.5

[18]
0

[19]

-0.5

-1
-1

[20]
-0.5

0.5

Real axis

[21]

(d) Pole-zero diagram of the estimated model

[22]
Figure 7. The measured and estimated output with RCGA subjected to
finite duration step disturbance.
[23]

1004

C. Papadimitriou, Optimal sensor placement methodology for

parametric identification of structural systems, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, vol. 278, 2004, pp. 923 947.
J.M. Martin Sanchez, Adaptive predictive control: From the
concepts to plan optimization, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
A. Alasty and R. Shabani, Nonlinear parametric identification of
magnetic bearings, Mechatronics, vol. 16, issue 8, 2006, pp. 451459.
J. R. R. Vasquez, R. R. Perez, J. S. Moriano and J.R. P. Gonzalez,
System identification of steam pressure in a fire-tube boiler,
Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 32, issue 12, 2008, pp.
2839-2848.
D. E. Goldberg, Real-coded genetic algorithms, virtual alphabets,
and blocking, Complex Systems 5, 1991, pp. 139-168.
J. Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, University
of Michigan Press, USA, 1975.
F. Herrera, M. Lozano and J.L. Verdegay, Tackling real-coded
genetic algorithms: operators and tools for behavioural analysis,
Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 12, 1998, pp. 265-319.
W. D. Chang. Nonlinear system identification and control using a
real-coded genetic algorithm, Journal of Applied Mathematical
Modelling, vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 541-550.
A. Oyama, S. Obayashi and T. Nakamura, Real-coded adaptive
range genetic algorithm applied to transonic wing optimization,
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Parallel Problem
Solving from Nature, 18 20 September, 2000, pp. 712-721.
H. Yan, , J. Zheng, Y. Jiang, , C. Peng and S. Xiao, Selecting critical
clinical features for heart diseases diagnosis with a real-coded genetic
algorithm, Journal of Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8, issue 2, 2007,
pp. 1105-1111.
N. S. Mera, L. Elliot and D. B. Ingham, Detection of subsurface
cavities in IR-CAT by a real coded genetic algorithm, Journal of Soft
Computing, vol. 2, issue 2, 2002, pp. 129-139.
I. Z. Mat Darus and M. O. Tokhi, Modelling of a flexible plate
structure using finite difference method, Proceedings of the 2nd
World Engineering Conference, Malaysia, July 2002, pp. 483-487.
S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of plates and
shells, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959.
A. W. Leissa, Vibration of plates, Scientific and Technical
Information Division Office of NASA, NASA SP-160, Washington,
D.C, 1969.
A. J Chipperfield and P. J Fleming, Parallel genetic algorithms: A
survey, Research Report No. 518, Department of Automatic Control
and Systems Engineering, The University of Sheffield, UK, 1994.
D. E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithm in search, optimization and
machine learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1989.
H. Mhlenbein and D. Schlierkamp-Voosen, Predictive Models for
the Breeder Genetic Algorithm: I. Continuous Parameter
Optimization, Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, issue 1, 1993, pp.
25-49.
J. E. Baker, Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection
algorithm, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms and their Application, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Associates, Inc. Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1987, 14-21.
R. Johansson, System Modeling and Identification, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1993.
L. Ljung and T. Glad, Modelling of Dynamic Systems. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1994.
T. Sderstrm and P. Stoica, System Identification. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1988.
S. A. Billings and W. S. N. Voon, Correlation based model validity
test for non-linear models, International Journal of Control, vol. 44,
issue 1, 1986, pp. 235-244.
S. A. Billings and Q. M. Zhu, Nonlinear model validation using
correlation tests, International Journal of Control, vol. 60, issue 6,
1994, pp. 1107-1120.