Ajwad 2018

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 18

Cybernetics and Systems

An International Journal

ISSN: 0196-9722 (Print) 1087-6553 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucbs20

Optimal and Robust Control of Multi DOF Robotic


Manipulator: Design and Hardware Realization

Syed Ali Ajwad, Jamshed Iqbal, Raza Ul Islam, Ahmed Alsheikhy, Abdullah
Almeshal & Adeel Mehmood

To cite this article: Syed Ali Ajwad, Jamshed Iqbal, Raza Ul Islam, Ahmed Alsheikhy,
Abdullah Almeshal & Adeel Mehmood (2018): Optimal and Robust Control of Multi DOF
Robotic Manipulator: Design and Hardware Realization, Cybernetics and Systems, DOI:
10.1080/01969722.2017.1412905

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2017.1412905

Published online: 08 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucbs20
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2017.1412905

none defined

Optimal and Robust Control of Multi DOF Robotic


Manipulator: Design and Hardware Realization
Syed Ali Ajwada, Jamshed Iqbalb,c, Raza Ul Islamd, Ahmed Alsheikhye,
Abdullah Almeshalf, and Adeel Mehmooda
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad,
Pakistan; bDepartment of Electrical Engineering, FAST National University of Computer and Emerging
Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan; cElectrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Jeddah,
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; dFaculty of Engineering and Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg,
Denmark; eDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Northern Border University, Arar, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia; fElectronics and Communication Department, Public Authority for Applied Education
and Training, Kuwait City, Kuwait

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Robots have become an integral part of industrial automation. AUTAREP manipulator;
Their ultimate role and contribution in this sector is essentially a autonomous mechatronics
function of the associated control strategy to ensure precision, process; industrial robotic
manipulator; robotic arm
repeatability, and reliability, particularly in an environment
control
polluted with disturbances and uncertainties. This research aims
to present a design of the modern control strategies for a 6 degree
of freedom robotic manipulator. Based on derived kinematic and
dynamic models of the robot, optimal and robust control
strategies are simulated and practically realized on a custom
developed pseudo-industrial framework named as AUTonomous
Articulated Robotic Educational Platform. Results of the experi-
mental trials in terms of trajectory tracking demonstrate efficiency
and usefulness of the presented control approaches.

Introduction
Thanks to recent advances in various domains of technology, the use of robots
can fulfill competitive requirements of the global market. Robots have become
very popular in many areas like medical (Iqbal, Tsagarakis, and Caldwell
2015), automation industries (Iqbal et al. 2016), space exploration (Iqbal et al.
2014), nuclear power plants (Iqbal et al. 2012), and so on. Currently, robots
are the key part of industrial production plants. They have reduced the pro-
duction time and increased the product quality significantly (Mitsi et al. 2005).
The job of robots in industry mostly involves welding, automated assembly, wafer
handling, sorting, and performing pick and place tasks. Robots can work in sce-
narios where human interaction is harmful because of environmental challenges.
Articulated robotic arms are the most common types of robots deployed in
industrial processes (Manzoor et al. 2014). These robots usually resemble
CONTACT Jamshed Iqbal [email protected] Department of Electrical Engineering, FAST National
University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, A.K. Brohi Road, H-11/4, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucbs.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

human arm in mechanical shape and kinematic configuration. However, they


are more powerful, strong and fast. Precise and accurate operations of such
arms demand a sophisticated and well-defined control strategy. In fact, the
stability, precision, repeatability and throughput of a robotic arm can only
be obtained with a complex and nonlinear control law. Furthermore, the
robot operations should be safe and harmless as they may be deployed in close
vicinity of human. The control means to formulate input torques so as to
force the actuator to precisely follow a specified trajectory.
Conventional control algorithms based on on–off and proportional–
integral–derivative (PID) (Ajwad, Iqbal, and Iqbal 2015) have been used in
industrial robotic arms during last few decades. In fact, about 95% of
industrial processes are controlled through PID (Girirajkumar, Kumar, and
Anantharaman 2010). Such algorithms are effective and can be formulated
by linear differential equations with constant coefficients only when the robot
is operated at slow speed. Since robot dynamics are inherently nonlinear and
highly coupled (Mahyuddin, Khan, and Herrmann 2014), these control
strategies lose their effectiveness at high speed operation. Furthermore, these
controllers cannot handle model imprecision, uncertainties, and payload
variation. Various robust optimal and adaptive control strategies have been
addressed by the research community to cope with these problems. A
comprehensive review of these modern control algorithms has been presented
in Ajwad et al. (2015), which systematically reports various optimal and
robust control strategies with the focus on the control of industrial articulated
robotic arms.
Linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is one of the optimal control techniques
(Hamza et al. 2011). It computes optimal feedback gains for a given system
such that the desired conditions are attained for some predefined cost index.
It has been applied to control flexible (Saini et al. 2012) and nonflexible
(Simmons and Demiris 2005) robotic manipulators as well as under actuated
systems (Leines and Yang 2011). The performance comparison (Khairudin,
Mohamed, and Husain 2013) of LQR with PID has shown that LQR requires
less input torque for optimal operation. This technique has also been tested
for parameter variations and variable payloads (Lee, Lee, and Mavroidis
2000), where the unwanted vibrations are significantly reduced by implement-
ing LQR based damping control.
In the category of robust control, sliding mode control (SMC) has been
widely studied (Xie et al. 2002). System stability and robustness toward
external disturbances are the key advantages of this technique. Higher order
SMC (Arisoy et al. 2011) and fuzzy logic/neural network based SMC control
laws (Wai and Muthusamy 2013) have been proposed primarily to improve
the system performance under model uncertainties and disturbances. Piltan
et al. (2011) have proposed adaptive gain scheduling for SMC using fuzzy
logic. The superior performance of SMC over computed torque control
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 3

(CTC) has been demonstrated in Islam, Iqbal, and Khan (2014). Through
simulation, it has been shown that SMC outperforms CTC in terms of
transient response and disturbance rejection. In Girirajkumar, Kumar, and
Anantharaman (2010), adaptive proportional derivative (PD) fuzzy SMC
has been implemented to control the position of a robotic manipulator.
The system parameters are estimated through fuzzy logic algorithm. Tahir
and Jaimoukha (2013b) presented a robust control law based on model
predictive control for linear discrete-time systems. The novelty of the
proposed strategy lies in incorporating a state-feedback structure in the outer
controller while considering feedback gains as decision variables in
optimization (Tahir and Jaimoukha 2013a).
Common industrial applications of multidegree of freedom (DOF) robotic
manipulator include welding, assembling, and painting. Table 1 presents a
comparative review of prominent robots for these applications. Despite the
attention of research community round the globe, the subject of manipulation
of multi-DOF robots has only seen a limited number of real-world implemen-
tations of modern control strategies. Most of the reported works are either
restricted to PID control or simulation of modern control strategies. In con-
trast with most of other reported works, scope of the present paper is not just
limited to simulation environment. LQR and SMC strategies have also been
implemented on a 6 DOF serial link pseudo-industrial robotic arm which is
a central part of custom developed AUTonomous Articulated Robotic
Educational Platform (AUTAREP) (Iqbal et al. 2014). The proposed
framework has been developed for in-house testing and validation of
advanced control schemes and motion planning algorithms. The designed
control laws are strongly backed by the mathematical models of the
manipulator, thus enriching theoretical foundations as well.
This article primarily focuses on the precise and robust control of a robotic
manipulator which cannot be achieved through a linear control law. Although
trivial control strategies are still the main workhorse in the industry, however,
stringent demands of precision, repeatability and reliability highlight the role
of nonlinear and robust control techniques in near future. Consequently, the
present work, implemented on a pseudo-industrial arm, finds potential in
robotics based industrial applications.

Table 1. Popular robots for common industrial applications.


Application Company Model DOF Weight (kg) Payload (kg) Max. reach (m)
Welding ABB IRB-7600 6 2550 150–500 2.55–3.50
COMAU Smart5 NJ4 6 1080–2005 270 3.002
Miller/Panasonic TA 1900 6 185 6 1.895
Assembling FANUC S-12 6 230 12 1.605
MOTOMAN Yaskawa SDA 10D 15 220 10/arm 1.97 (H), 1.44 (V)
ADEPT Adept Viper 6 28 2.5–5 0.653–1.298
Painting ABB IRB-580 6–7 630 10 2.18–2.56
Kawasaki KG-264 6 795 12 2.67
4 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

Table 2. AUTAREP specifications.


Parameters Specs. Description
Kinematics No. of joints 5
No. of DOF 6
ROM Wrist pitch: 260°
Wrist roll: 360°
Elbow: 172°
Shoulder: 90°
Waist: 310°
Physical Locomotion Articulated links
Actuation 6 DC servo motors
Weight 33 kg
Dimensions Ø Base-220 × 180(H) mm
Arm length—220 þ 220 mm
Sensing Vision Camera (Logitech)
Force FSR attached at gripper
Position Optical encoders
Precision �1.5 mm
Repeatability �1 mm
Performance Movement speed 100 mm/s (max.)
Payload 1 kg
Action radius 580 mm (largest)
Stall current 2.2 A (for each motor)
Applied voltage 24 V

The robot specifications are provided in Table 2.


System’s mathematical model has been formulated to derive the control
laws. The robotic manipulator with wrist, elbow, shoulder and waist joints
resembles with the human arm. It, however, has different range of motion
(ROM) as illustrated in Figure 1. The joints are actuated through DC servo
motors (DME38B50G-115 for joints and DME331337G171 for gripper) and
are equipped with digital encoders for position feedback.

Figure 1. AUTAREP robotic manipulator: a comparison with human arm. Note: AUTAREP,
AUTonomous Articulated Robotic Educational Platform.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 5

This paper is structured as follows: “Mathematical model” section derives


the robot model. Design of the control strategies and simulation results have
been discussed in “Controller design” section while “Hardware realization”
section details the electronics of AUTAREP and implementation results of
the proposed control laws. “Conclusion” section concludes the paper.

Mathematical Model
The design of a control algorithm requires the knowledge of derived
mathematical model of a robot (Islam et al. 2012). Modeling plays a vital
role in investigating the relationship between motion and forces required to
accomplish a given task and subsequently designing a control strategy. A
complete mathematical model of a robot can be formulated by considering
its kinematic and dynamic motion.

Kinematic Model
Kinematic model describes the time-based states of the system (position,
velocity, and acceleration) and the resulting orientation of end-effector. It
involves derivation of forward kinematics (FK) and inverse kinematics (IK).
FK can be computed using Denavit–Hartenberg (DH) parameters, geometri-
cal representation, screw theory-based representation and Hayati–Roberts
representation. The DH parameters based model of the robot has been
computed in Iqbal, Islam, and Khan (2012). The frame assignment of each
joint of the robot is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Frame assignment.


6 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

Considering the nomenclature given as; c1 ¼ cos h1 and c12 ¼ cosðh1 þ h2 Þ


the overall rotation and translation of end-effector with respect to the base is
given by (1):
2 3
c1 c5 s234 þ s1 s5 c1 s5 c234 þ s1 c5 c1 s234 c1 A
6 s1 c5 c234 c1 s5 s1 s5 c234 c1 s5 s1 s234 s1 A 7
y¼6 4
7 ð1Þ
c5 s234 s5 s234 c234 B 5
0 0 0 1

where
A ¼ l2c2 þ l2c23 − l4s234
B ¼ l1 − l2s2 − l2s23 − l4c234
Using (1) and information about ROM of various joints of the arm, 3D
work-envelope of the manipulator is illustrated in Figure 3. The workspace
indicates the manipulators ability to operate the objects inside spherical radius
of 580 mm.
Inverse kinematics model of the robot has been formulated using algebraic
and geometric techniques. The derived joint angles of the robotic arm are
given by (2)–(5).

h1 ¼ Atan2 py ; px ð2Þ
1 �
c3 ¼ ðc1 px þ s1 py þ l4 s234 Þ2 þ ðpz l1 þ l4 c234 Þ2 l22 l32
2l2 l3
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s3 ¼ � 1 c23

h3 ¼ Atan2ðs3 ; c3 Þ ð3Þ
1 � �
c2 ¼ c1 px þ s1 py þ l4 s234 ðc3 l3 þ l2 Þ ðpz l1 þ l4 c234 Þs3 l3
ðc3 l3 þ l2 Þ2 þs23 l32

Figure 3. 3D work-envelope of AUTAREP manipulator. Note: AUTAREP, AUTonomous Articulated


Robotic Educational Platform.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 7

1 � �
s2 ¼ c1 px þ s1 py þ l4 s234 s3 l3 þ ðpz l1 þ l4 c234 Þðc3 l3 þ l2 Þ
ðc3 l3 þ l2 Þ2 þs23 l32

h2 ¼ Atan2ðs2 ; c2 Þ ð4Þ
h4 ¼ h234 ðh2 þ h3 Þ ð5Þ
where px, py, and pz denote the object distance from robot base center in x, y
and z axis respectively.

Dynamic Model
Dynamic model describes the relation between time-based state of a system
under consideration and forces/torques that are causing the change in the
states. Scientific community has proposed various methods for the formu-
lation of dynamic model. Dynamic model of AUTAREP arm has been
developed using Euler–Lagrange scheme which is most commonly used
energy based technique. The Lagrangian of the complete system has been
computed by difference of potential and kinetic energies. The resulted
dynamic model is given by (6).
s ¼ MðqÞ€q þ V ðq; q_ Þ þ GðqÞ ð6Þ
where τ denotes the input torque and q represents the link’s angular position.
MðqÞ; V ðq; q_ Þ, and G(q) represent matrices corresponding to inertia, force
(including Corollis and centrifugal forces) and gravity respectively. The
derived dynamic model is given in Islam, Iqbal, and Khan (2014).

Controller Design
The overall research problem consists of derivation of kinematic and dynamic
models of the arm followed by the design of the control algorithm. The
control law based on the dynamic model is presented below.

Linear Quadratic Regulators


Linear quadratic regulator belongs to the class of optimal control strategies
which provides best possible results according to predefined criterion (Ajwad
et al. 2014). It maximizes the system performance by providing optimal
feedback gain. LQR based control law computes the gain that minimizes
the cost function given by (7).
Z1
� T �
J¼ x ðtÞQðtÞxðtÞ þ uT ðtÞRðtÞuðtÞ dt ð7Þ
0
8 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

where u(t) and x(t) represent matrices corresponding to input and current
state, respectively. R(t) is a real symmetric positive definite matrix while Q
(t) is a positive semidefinite matrix. The matrices R(t) and Q(t) are chosen
to individually define the contribution of states and control inputs for optimal
operation (Khan, Islam, and Iqbal 2012). Acceleration of the robot links can
be written as,

€q ¼ MðqÞ 1 ðs V ðq; q_ Þ G ðqÞÞ


Consequently, the state space equation for the above system can then be
written as,
� � � �
x_ 1 q_
¼
x_ 2 MðqÞ 1 ðs V ðq; q_ Þ GðqÞÞ
The dynamics of the robot has been linearized by state feedback lineariza-
tion method. The proposed input control law is given in (5) with
€q ¼ vðtÞ ¼ KxðtÞ ð8Þ
where K is the gain matrix. The linearized dynamics can be written in
Brunovsky canonical form as,
x_ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BvðtÞ ð9Þ
where A 2 Rðm�mÞ and B 2 Rðm�nÞ are the system and input matrices
respectively. m denotes the number of states while n is the number of inputs.
The optimal gain can be computed as described by (10).

K ¼ R 1 BT P ð10Þ
where P is symmetric positive definite matrix and it is a solution of Riccati
equation. The equation may have more than one solutions but only one
solution satisfies positive semidefinite condition and is used to compute K.

Sliding Mode Control


The other control strategy, designed, and implemented in present research
is SMC. The control technique has the ability of controlling uncertainties
in nonlinear especially discrete systems with multi-inputs multi-outputs
(Laghrouche, Mehmood, and Bagdouri 2012). SMC works in two phases
which are known as reaching phase and sliding phase (Khan and Jalani
2016). In reaching phase, the system dynamics starts from any initial con-
dition and reaches the sliding surface. Once the system attains the sliding
phase after being on the sliding surface, it stays there for all future values
of time. Block diagram of SMC has been depicted in Figure 4.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 9

Figure 4. Block diagram of SMC. Note: SMC, sliding mode control.

Consider a nonlinear system in canonical form, as described by (11).


x_ ¼ f ðx; tÞ þ bðx; tÞu þ Dðx; tÞ ð11Þ
where x 2 Rn is the state vector and u 2 Rm denotes the control input.
The functions f(x, t) and b(x, t) are the known smooth vector fields. Dðx; tÞ
represents matched and bounded uncertainties and can be expressed as,
Dðx; tÞ ¼ bðx; tÞdðtÞ
where dðtÞ is a bounded term i.e., dðtÞ � T. First step to design a
controller based on SMC is to define a sliding surface or manifold as given
in (12).
S ¼ C ð xÞ ð12Þ
C is a row matrix whose size is compatible to the state matrix. The entries
of C are chosen in a way that S becomes a Hurwitz polynomial. The objective
in SMC is to keep S ¼ 0 through control law. This condition offers order
reduction and the system evolved with n − 1 states exhibits insensitivity w.r.
t. the matched uncertainties. The control law developed via SMC comprises
of two parts as follows:
u ¼ ueq þ udis ð13Þ
where ueq is the equivalent control input and udis represents discontinuous
control input. The equivalent controller is obtained by replacing S ¼ 0 along
the system dynamics (11). Assuming Dðx; tÞ ¼0, ueq consequently can be
written as:

ueq ¼ b 1 ðx; tÞð f ðx; tÞÞ ð14Þ

ueq forces the system to move to the sliding surface from its initial state and
keeps S ¼ 0 but disturbance or uncertainty may cause S ≠ 0. To nullify this
10 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

effect, udis is designed by defining a Lyapunov function


1
V ¼ S2 ð15Þ
2
The time derivative of (15) along (11) will be
@S � �
V_ ¼ SS_ ¼ f ðx; tÞ þ bðx; tÞ ueq þ udis þ Dðx; tÞ
@x
Substituting (14) in above expression, (16) is obtained

V_ ¼ Sðbðx; tÞudis þ Dðx; tÞÞ ð16Þ


Using the norm bounded uncertainty supposition, (16) takes the form
of (17).

V_ ¼ Sbðx; tÞðudis þ dðx; tÞÞ ð17Þ


Replacing udis ¼ − kSign(S), (17) becomes

V_ ¼ Sbðx; tÞð kSignðSÞ þ dðx; tÞÞ


V_ � jSjjbðx; tÞjðk jdðtÞjÞ
V_ � jSjw ð18Þ
where w > 0 for all values of k > jdðtÞj. Since V is negative semidefinite for
udis ¼ − kSign(S), the dynamics converges to origin indefinite time. In the
present work, each link of the robotic arm represents a second-order system.
The control objective is to ensure that the system follows the desired trajec-
tory qd. To attain this objective, following sliding surface has been defined
for error signal e ¼ qd − q.
Z e
S ¼ e_ þ ke þ I dt ð19Þ

where λ and I are positive constants. The controlled torque has been
computed by following the design procedure and consequently, can be written
as in (20).
s ¼ MðqÞ½kðe_ Þ þ I ðeÞ þ €qd � þ V ðq; q_ Þ þ GðqÞ kSignðSÞ fS ð20Þ
The term ζ S has been used for strong reachability purpose. The input
torque ensures the sliding mode and keeps the robot dynamics on sliding
surface S for all future values of time.

Simulation Results
The simulations for LQR and SMC have been performed in MATLAB R2009a
using derived dynamic model. The designed controller has been subjected to
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 11

Figure 5. Step response of shoulder joint.

various test inputs, such as step, ramp, and sine along with different initial
conditions. Simulation results indicate that both control laws are capable of
successfully tracking almost every input. Figures 5–8 present tracking
response of LQR and SMC for various joints of the robotic arm.
Robustness of the control strategies against variable payload has also been
tested by varying pay-load from 0 to 250 g. The change in amplitude of the
variable load has been selected between 10 and 200 g. It is clear from
Figure 9 that LQR’s performance degrades for variable payload while SMC
remains stable. In case of elbow joint (Figure 9a), LQR results in position vari-
ation up to 27.8%, which reduces as we go from shoulder joint (Figure 9b) to
base joint (result not shown) due to impact of gravity. On the other hand,

Figure 6. Ramp response of elbow joint.

Figure 7. Sinusoidal response of elbow joint.


12 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

Figure 8. User defined trajectory for wrist joint.

Figure 9. Robustness against variable load, (a) elbow joint (b) shoulder joint.

SMC exhibits robust performance when subjected to variable load with


negligible deviation from steady-state stable value.

Hardware Realization
The proposed control algorithms have also been implemented on various joints
of actual robotic arm through embedded hardware of AUTAREP (Iqbal et al.
2014). The electronic hardware is centered on a 16-bit digital microcontroller
dsPIC33FJ256GP710A. The position and direction information of each link is
provided to microcontroller using optical encoder mounted on each motor.
With more than 100 Kernel command, the designed graphic user interface oper-
ates the controller through Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter
(UART) protocol. Teaching pendent, which is interfaced with controller through
digital input ports, can also be used to operate the system. Overall architecture,
showing the interface of a single motor segment with microcontroller is
illustrated in Figure 10a while fabricated hardware is depicted in Figure 10b.
The power rating of customized H-bridges for driving motors is 50 V/5 A.
Desired speed of the motor is achieved by controlling the voltage through
pulse width modulation of respective duty cycle. To avoid any mechanical
damage to the arm, current sensing resistor has been added to limit the
current supply in case of motor stall. Each motor draws the current of 0.65
and 1.5 A in normal and stall conditions respectively.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 13

Figure 10. AUTAREP electronic hardware (a) block diagram and (b) developed control board.
Note: AUTAREP, AUTonomous Articulated Robotic Educational Platform.

The differential equations of the control laws have been transformed into
difference equation, for computation inside microcontroller, using Euler’s
technique. By definition, time derivative can be described as:
dq
€q ¼ limd!1 ð21Þ
dt
where δ represents a small change. In digital domain, (21) can be
approximated as

q ð kÞ qðk 1Þ
q_ ffi ð22Þ
T
where T denotes the sampling time which is set as 5 ms. The terms q(k) and
q(k − 1) represent present and previous position respectively. Likewise,
integration can also be approximated in microcontroller using trapezoidal,
14 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

forward, or backward rule. Suppose that u(k − 1) is the approximated value of


integration at time t(k − 1) then the integration at time tk is approximated as

uðkÞ ¼ uðk 1Þ þ TqðkÞ ð23Þ

The experimental results of base, shoulder and elbow joints have been
presented in Figure 11.
Considering the response of base joint, although the rise time in case of
LQR is less as compared to SMC but SMC is showing dominancy in other
parameters like overshoot and settling time. Comparing the responses of both
strategies for shoulder and elbow joints, it can be seen clearly that SMC is
responding more effectively and expeditiously in all aspects.
Coupling effect in the hardware has also been investigated. It has been
observed that in the real system, the coupling effect does not diminish
totally and influences the stability of the robot. The robot joints have been
moved individually as well as simultaneously to study this effect. In both
cases, significant difference in the response has been observed as illustrated
in Figure 12. The trajectory corresponding to “individual joint” represents
the response of a particular joint while the other joints are kept static.
Whereas, trajectory with legend “multiple joints” represents the response of
all joints stimulated at same time. There are many reasons responsible for this
effect, which include mechanical play, backlash, and sharing same power
source.

Figure 11. Coupling effect in trajectories corresponding to joints, (a) base, (b) shoulder, and
(c) elbow.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 15

Figure 12. Coupling effect in trajectories corresponding to joints, (a) base, (b) shoulder, and
(c) elbow.

Conclusion
This research article is focused on control of multi-DOF robotic arm. LQR
and SMC control techniques have been implemented on a custom developed
platform. Both strategies have been tested and compared for various inputs.
Through simulation results, it has been illustrated that SMC shows better
performance for all kinds of reference trajectories and robustness against vari-
able payload. The digitized algorithms have also been implemented on base,
shoulder and elbow joints of actual hardware to validate simulation results
in a real environment. It is envisaged in near future to implement a control
strategy on wrist joint and finally to incorporate trajectory planning and
collision avoidance algorithms so as to offer a fully integrated and multi-
dimensional tool for researchers, industrial engineers, interns and students.

References
Ajwad, S. A., M. I. Ullah, K. Baizid, and J. Iqbal. 2014. A comprehensive state-of-the-art
on control of industrial articulated robots. Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association
20 (4):499–521.
Ajwad, S. A., J. Iqbal, M. I. Ullah, and A. Mehmood. 2015. A systematic review of current
and emergent manipulator control approaches. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 10 (2):
198–210. doi:10.1007/s11465-015-0335-0(Higher Education Press).
Ajwad, S. A., U. Iqbal, and J. Iqbal. 2015. Hardware realization and PID control of
multi-degree of freedom articulated robotic arm. Mehran University Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology 34(S1): 1–12. ISSN: 0254-7821.
Arisoy, A., M. K. Bayrakceken, S. Basturk, M. Gokasan, and O. S. Bogosyan. 2011. High order
sliding mode control of a space robot manipulator. Proceedings of 5th international
16 S. A. AJWAD ET AL.

conference on recent advances in space technologies - RAST2011, 833–38. IEEE, Istanbal,


Turkey, 9-11 June 2011. doi:10.1109/RAST.2011.5966960.
Girirajkumar, S. M., Atal A. Kumar, and N. Anantharaman. 2010. Tuning of a PID controller
for a real time industrial process using particle swarm optimization. International Journal of
Computer Applications ecot (1):35–40. doi:10.5120/1528-131.
Hamza, M., Zaka-ur-Rehman, Q. Zahid, F. Tahir, and Z. Khalid. 2011. Real-time control of
an inverted pendulum: A comparative study. 2011 Frontiers of Information Technology,
183–88. IEEE, Islamabad, Pakistan, 19-21 December 2011. doi:10.1109/FIT.2011.41.
Iqbal, J., N. G. Tsagarakis, and D. G. Caldwell. 2015. Four-fingered lightweight exoskeleton
robotic device accommodating different hand sizes. Electronics Letters 51 (12):888–90
(IET Digital Library).
Iqbal, J., R. U. Islam, and H. Khan. 2012. Modeling and analysis of a 6 DOF robotic arm
manipulator. Canadian Journal on Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3 (6):300–06.
Iqbal, J., R. U. Islam, S. Z. Abbas, A. A. Khan, and S. A. Ajwad. 2016. Automating industrial
tasks through mechatronic systems – A review of robotics in industrial perspective. Tehnicki
Vjesnik - Technical Gazette 23 (3):917–24. doi:10.17559/TV-20140724220401.
Iqbal, J., M. Rehman-Saad, A. Malik, and A. Mahmood-Tahir. 2014. State estimation
technique for a planetary robotic rover. Revista Facultad de Ingenieria 1 (73):58–68.
Iqbal, J., A. M. Tahir, R. U. Islam, and Riaz-un-Nabi. 2012. Robotics for nuclear power
plants — Challenges and future perspectives. 2012 2nd international conference on applied
robotics for the power industry (CARPI), 151–56. IEEE, Zurich, Switzerland, 11-13
September 2012. doi:10.1109/CARPI.2012.6473373.
Iqbal, U., A. Samad, Z. Nissa, and J. Iqbal. 2014. Embedded control system for AUTAREP - A
novel autonomous articulated robotic educational platform. Tehnički Vjesnik 21 (6):1255–61.
Islam, R. U., J. Iqbal, and Q. Khan. 2014. Design and comparison of two control strategies for
multi-DOF articulated robotic arm manipulator. Journal of Control Engineering and Applied
Informatics 16 (2):28–39.
Islam, R. U., J. Iqbal, S. Manzoor, A. Khalid, and S. Khan. 2012. An autonomous image-guided
robotic system simulating industrial applications. 2012 7th International Conference on
system of systems engineering (SoSE), 344–49. IEEE, Genova, Italy, 16-19 July 2012.
doi:10.1109/SYSoSE.2012.6384195.
Khairudin, M., Z. Mohamed, and A. R. Husain. 2013. Dynamic model and robust control of
flexible link robot manipulator. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics
and Control) 9 (2):279–86.
Khan, M. F., R. U. Islam, and J. Iqbal. 2012. Control strategies for robotic manipulators. 2012
International Conference of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, 26–33. IEEE. doi:10.1109/
ICRAI.2012.6413422.
Khan, S. G., and J. Jalani. 2016. Realisation of model reference compliance control of a
humanoid robot arm via integral sliding mode control. Mechanical Sciences 7:1–8.
doi:10.5194/ms-7-1-2016.
Laghrouche, S., A. Mehmood, and M. E. Bagdouri. 2012. Study of the nonlinear control
techniques for single acting VGT pneumatic actuator. International Journal of Vehicle
Design 60 (3/4):264. doi:10.1504/IJVD.2012.050084.
Lee, C. J., and C. Mavroidis. 2000. Discrete-time LQR and H2 damping control of flexible
payloads using a robot manipulator with a wrist-mounted force/torque sensor. Proc. ASME
Int. Mechanical Engineering Congr. Exposition Dynamic Systems and Control Division,
vol. DSC-69-2, Orlando, FL, Nov. 5–9, 2000, pp. 997–1004.
Leines, M. T., and J.-S. Yang. 2011. LQR control of an under actuated planar biped robot. 2011
6th IEEE conference on industrial electronics and applications, 1684–89. IEEE, Beijing,
China, 21-23 June 2011. doi:10.1109/ICIEA.2011.5975861.
CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 17

Mahyuddin, M. N., S. G. Khan, and G. Herrmann. 2014. A novel robust adaptive control
algorithm with finite-time online parameter estimation of a humanoid robot arm. Robotics
and Autonomous Systems 62 (3):294–305. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.09.013.
Manzoor, S., R. U. Islam, A. Khalid, A. Samad, and J. Iqbal. 2014. An open-source multi-DOF
articulated robotic educational platform for autonomous object manipulation. Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 30 (3):351–62. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2013.11.003.
Mitsi, S., K.-D. Bouzakis, G. Mansour, D. Sagris, and G. Maliaris. 2005. Off-line programming
of an industrial robot for manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufac-
turing Technology 26 (3):262–67. doi:10.1007/s00170-003-1728-5 (Springer-Verlag).
Piltan, F., A. Salehi, A. Jalali, and A. Zare. 2011. Design sliding mode controller for robot
manipulator with artificial tuneable gain. Canadian Journal of Pure and Applied Science
5 (2):1573–80. doi:10.1049/ip-cta:19990518.
Saini, S. C., Y. Sharma, M. Bhandari, and U. Satija. 2012. Comparison of pole placement and
LQR applied to single link flexible manipulator. 2012 International conference on com-
munication systems and network technologies, 843–47. IEEE, Rajkot, India, 11-13 May
2012. doi:10.1109/CSNT.2012.183.
Simmons, G., and Y. Demiris. 2005. Optimal robot arm control using the minimum variance
model. Journal of Robotic Systems 22 (11):677–90. doi:10.1002/rob.20092(Wiley
Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company).
Tahir, F., and I. M. Jaimoukha. 2013a. Causal state-feedback parameterizations in robust
model predictive control. Automatica 49 (9):2675–82. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2013.
06.015.
Tahir, F., and I. M. Jaimoukha. 2013b. Robust feedback model predictive control of
constrained uncertain systems. Journal of Process Control 23 (2):189–200. doi:10.1016/j.
jprocont.2012.08.003.
Wai, R.-J., and R. Muthusamy. 2013. Fuzzy-neural-network inherited sliding-mode control for
robot manipulator including actuator dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and
Learning Systems 24 (2):274–87. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2012.2228230.
Xie, S. Q., Z. C. Duan, A. Shaw, and Y. L. Tu. 2002. A fuzzy integral sliding mode control
algorithm for high-speed laser beam focus tracking control. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 20 (4):296–302. doi:10.1007/s001700200155
(Springer-Verlag London Limited).

You might also like