Physical Science International Journal

15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

ISSN: 2348-0130

Dynamic Modeling of a 3-DOF Articulated Robotic

Manipulator Based on Independent Joint Scheme
Emmanuel C. Agbaraji1*, Hyacinth C. Inyiama2 and Christiana C. Okezie2
1
Department of Computer Engineering, Federal Polytechnic, Nekede, Owerri, Nigeria.
2
Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author ECA designed the study,
performed the simulation, analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Authors HCI and CCO
managed the analyses of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2017/33578
Editor(s):
(1) Yang-Hui He, Professor of Mathematics, City University London, UK and Chang-Jiang Chair Professor in Physics and Qian-
Ren Scholar, Nan Kai University, China; & Tutor and Quondam-Socius in Mathematics, Merton College, University of Oxford,
UK.
(2) Christian Brosseau, Distinguished Professor, Department of Physics, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, France.
Reviewers:
(1) André Fenili, Federal University of ABC, Santo André (SP), Brazil.
(2) Qingjuan Duan, Xidian University, China.
(3) Rajinder Tiwari, Amity University, Lucknow, U.P. India.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/19826

st
Received 21 April 2017
Original Research Article Accepted 8th June 2017
Published 3rd July 2017

ABSTRACT
Joint torque control of a robotic manipulator requires a close dynamic description model involving
the non negligible dynamics of the subsystems making up the system. The mathematical model for
joint torque control of the robotic manipulator has been identified as one of the major sources of
failures of commercial robots. The manipulator is basically made up of links connected by joints,
and the torque that moves the links connected to a joint is produced by the joint actuator and also
in practice, the control law is fed into the actuator inputs, therefore the actuator dynamics becomes
non negligible dynamics in the dynamic modeling of the manipulator for robust joint torque control.
Hence, a complete dynamic model of the manipulator which involves the link dynamics plus
actuator dynamics was proposed. This paper focuses on the modeling of a 3DOF articulated
manipulator based on independent joint (decentralized) scheme and the determination of the
viscous damping coefficient for the joint torque control model. The independent joint model
provides closer mathematical description of the manipulator and also enhances robust controller
design. Joint damping coefficient B, was determined through experiment based on bode plot of the
open loop gain. From the results, it was concluded that joints I and II achieved the best
performance when B is 0.001N.m/rad /sec and 0.01N.m/rad /sec respectively.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected];

 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

Keywords: Decentralized control; robotic manipulator modeling; independent joint control; link; joint
torque control; 3DOF; dynamic model; articulated robotic manipulator.

1. INTRODUCTION output to the joint motor inputs and each joint

feeds its output back to its controller for
Articulated robotic manipulators consist of links optimization, thereby utilizing a single input
connected by bending or rotating joints (axes), single out configuration of the decentralized
copying the movement capability of a human control scheme. Hence, the joint dynamic model
arm. They are ideally suited to welding and based on the decentralized control which uses
cutting, laser applications, deep sea and medical multiple SISO configurations is proposed to
surgery works. Kinematics is the motion control electrically driven manipulators. Fateh [7]
geometry of the robot manipulator from the stated that this method obtains simplicity,
reference position to the desired position with no accuracy, speed and robustness to the
regard to forces or other factors that influence manipulator. Most industrial robots are controlled
robot motion [1]. In practice most robot by independent joint control strategy [13]. In [14]
manipulators are driven by electric actuators independent joint control law was used for
which apply torques at the joints of the robot. The robotic manipulator model by considering the
dynamics of a robotic manipulator describes how actuator dynamics and the arm dynamics. In this
the robot moves in response to these actuator method, the arm dynamics and the actuator
forces. In order to control the force and motion of dynamics are combined to form a complete
the robotic manipulator, its actuator dynamics manipulator dynamic model. Ovy et al. [15]
must be considered. In the dynamic modeling of applied the actuator dynamic model in their
manipulator rigid bodies (arm) the following robotic arm control. Implementation of actuator
methods were used: Lagrange-Euler, Newton dynamics in the dynamic model for joint torque
Euler, D’Alembert [2]. Iqbal and Author [3] control of an articulated manipulator was
suggested that there should be an improvement presented in [16,17].
in the dynamic model of the robotic manipulator
by adding the complete model of the selected Garulli et al. [18] stated that when modeling
drives in the model. This was supported by Lewis physical systems for control purposes, it is
et al. [4] who stated that to obtain a complete necessary to provide model descriptions that
dynamical description of the arm plus actuators, capture the main features of the system behavior
requires adding the actuator dynamics to the arm and are mathematically tractable at the same
dynamics. Melchiorri [5] declared that the time. The main aim of this work is to develop a
actuation system has several effects on the dynamic model that provides a close dynamical
dynamics: if motors are installed on the links, descriptions model, considering the electrical and
then masses and inertia are changed, and it mechanical dynamics of the system for robust
introduces its own dynamics (electromechanical, control.
pneumatic, hydraulic, etc) that may be non
negligible. It also introduces additional nonlinear 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
effects such as backslash, friction, and elasticity.
The dynamic model applied in [19,20] is basically
Alassar [6] identified two essential problems in the dynamical description of the mechanical arm
the development of robotic manipulators: the first of the manipulator. Biradar et al. [21] investigated
problem is the mathematical modeling of the Lagrange-Euler method and suggested a future
manipulator and the actuators, and the second work for an improved model that can be
problem is the control of the manipulator. The implemented in the controller of the manipulator,
problem of the dynamic model of the robotic and optimized for a specific job task. In
manipulator was also identified in Fateh [7] to be Izadbakhsh et al. [22], the Langrange model was
the joint torque control problem. The inability of used when considering the equation of motion of
the commercial robots to control joint torques is a robot links. However, a complete model of the
well known problem [8,9]. The general robot arm actuator was used for the robust controller
dynamic control law proposed in [10,11] was design simulation in their work; they did not
described by Fateh [7] as complex and consider the arm dynamics in the model used in
complicated. In a manipulator driven by DC the simulation. Lewis et al. [4] stated that to
motors, the currents of the DC motors are obtain a complete dynamical description of the
directly controlled to implement the torque control arm plus the actuator (which make up the robotic
law [12]. The DC motor driven manipulators are manipulator), it is required to add the actuator
controlled by applying the designed controller dynamics to the arm dynamics. According to

2
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

Helal et al. [23], actuators model are computed to and by the actuation system. He also explained
merge it with the dynamic model of the robot. that there are two types of robot control
Conversely, the dynamic model they presented schemes: Decentralized (or independent) control
did not include the inertia of the robot link. Thus, schemes and Centralized control schemes. The
the consideration of the manipulator link inertia decentralized control scheme also known as
into this model would give a more complete independent joint control (IJC) model has Single
dynamical description of the robotic manipulator. Input Single Output (SISO) configuration while
In addressing the problems in robot force control the centralized control scheme has a Multiple
as presented in [24], the actuator model is Input Multiple Output (MIMO) configuration. From
coupled to the rigid body model of the robotic the review, SISO configuration (which can
manipulator. Fateh [7] modeled the robotic equally be in the form of multiple SISO) is more
manipulator based on the independent joint common and simpler than the MIMO in practice.
control approach which is based on the joint According to Alassar [6], the basis of IJC is that
actuator dynamic model and the torque due to the robotic manipulator is treated as a set of
link. Ovy et al. [15] designed an articulated robot independent actuators working independently.
arm for precise positioning based on joint This means that each link of the robotic
dynamic model instead of the Lagrangian-Euler manipulator is considered as single input single
dynamic model of the arm. In order to achieve a output (SISO) system with an independent
complete dynamic model for a closer dynamic controller.
description for the robotic manipulator modeling
and control therefore, the actuator dynamics plus Independent joint control scheme is widely
the link dynamics must be considered and this adopted in most industrial manipulator controller
can be achieved by the deployment of because of its simplicity [27]. According to
decentralized control also known as independent Richter [28], to derive the independent joint
joint control approach. control model, it is assumed that the DC motor is
connected to a gear reduction of ratio r : 1 and
2.1 Robotic Manipulator Kinematic moment of inertia Jg. The reduced-speed shaft
Arrangements drives a rotational inertia Jl, which represents the
The industrial robots are basically composed of link driven by the motorized joint. The motion of
rigid links, connected in series by joints, having the other links should influence the DC motor as
one end fixed (base) and another free to move well. For the independent joint model, however,
and perform useful work when properly tooled the influences of the other links are treated as
(end-effector). The structure of the robot consists disturbances and then the controller is designed
of a number of links and joints, a joint will allow to be robust (tolerant) against them [28]. When
relative motion between two links [25]. The applying the independent joint scheme,
different arrangements of the rigid links and the Melchiorri [26] stated that each joint of the robotic

term d ( =  ) is considered as an external
type of joints applied in the design of a robotic manipulator is considered independently, and the
arm gave rise to the types of arms of the
manipulator. There are five types of manipulator disturbance. These considerations can be
arm configurations commonly used by industrial applied with proficiency when there is no
robotic manipulators: cartesian, cylindrical, polar, direct coupling between the actuator and the
SCARA and revolution. Although there are many joint.
possible ways prismatic and revolute joints are
used to construct kinematic chains, in practice Fig. 1 illustrates the independent control scheme
only a few of these are commonly used [14]. where the actuator and link dynamics are
Crowder [25] stated that the basic robot arm has considered. Where Ja, Jg and Jl are respectively,
three joints, this allows the tool at the end of the the actuator, gear, and load inertias. Bm is the

friction in the brushes and gears.  is the link

arm to be positioned anywhere in the robots coefficient of motor friction and includes the
working envelope. Even though there are a large
number of robot configurations that are possible, torque, r is the gear ratio. Considering a DC
only five configurations are commonly used in motor actuator, the independent joint model of
industrial robotics as summarized in Table 1. the robotic manipulator is derived in [14,26]. Fig.
2 shows the block diagram of a robotic
2.2 Robotic Manipulator Control Schemes manipulator and Fig. 3 represents a third

position  .
order system from input voltage V(s) to output
Milchiorri [26] stated that the robot performances
are mainly influenced by the mechanical design

3
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017;; Article no.PSIJ.
no.PSIJ.33578

Table 1. Configurations commonly used in iindustrial robots [25]

Polar The linear extending arm is capable of being

rotated around the horizontal and vertical
axes.

Cylindrical The linear extending arm can be moved

vertically up and down around a rotating
column.

Cartesian and Gantry: Three orthogonal sliding or prismatic joints.

Jointed Arm or Three joints arranged in an anthropomorphic

Articulated configuration.

Selective Compliance Two rotary axes and a linear joint.

Assembly Robotic Arm,
SCARA

Fig. 1. Lumped model of single link with actuator/gear train [14,26]

Fig. 2. Robotic manipulator block diagram (SISO)

4
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017;; Article no.PSIJ.
no.PSIJ.33578

Fig. 3. Block diagr

diagram of actuator model with link [14,26]

3. METHODOLOGY Where τ is actuation torque, M (q) is a symmetric

and positive define inertia matrix, N is the vector
The mathematical models for the robotic of nonlinearity term.


,
  = 
,
 
  
,, therefore:
manipulator are very important for the
development of the system. To achieve robust



 
,
 
  
 = 
joint torque control, the robotic manipulator
analysis must involve the source of the joint (2)
torque. The development of mathematical model

completed inertia matrix, 

,
  is the centripetal
for joint torque control of the manipulator must Where q is the joint variable vector, M(q) is the
involve a complete dynamical description of the
entire system comprising of the links and the and Coriolis torque vector, G(q) is the
actuators. Therefore, a complete dynamic model gravitational torque vector. Due to the
comprising of the link dynamics and actuator complexity of this method of robotic manipulator
dynamics was proposed
oposed in this work for joint dynamics analysis, Lin et al. [30] assumed that
torque control of the manipulator. Independent g(q) = 0. However, Kim et al. [31] and Liu et al al.
joint control strategy was adopted in order to [32] did not adopt such assumption. From the
separately model the joint torques to enable review, there are too many differences in the
precise robust controller design for every joint of assumptions in most works where equation 2
the manipulator. Fig. 4 shows the kinematics
inematics of a was applied.
two-link 3DOF planar arm.
3.2 Joint Actuator Model

The articulated manipulator is driven by electric

actuator and the dynamic equation of a
manipulator driven by DC motors [7,14] is
formulated as follows:



 
,
 
  
 =   (3)

where i is the armature current vector, and Kt is

the diagonal matrix of motor torque constant. The
actuator nominal model is derived from the motor
internal structure.

 =   (4)

Sum of torques at the motor gear is equal to

link 3DOF planar
Fig. 4. Kinematics of a two-link zero, that is:
arm
  
   =  

  
3.1 Robot Arm Dynamic Model (5)

The dynamics of an n-DOF robot manipulator is Taking the Laplace transform of equation 5
governed by the following
ing equation [29]:
[29] yields;



 
,
  =  (1)         =    (6)

5
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

The electrical circuit of the actuator provides the as velocity increases. He also stated that the
following equation [13]: dynamic model involving the actuator dynamics
is preferred to equation 2 in the robotic
= #  $%  &
! '
!"
manipulator design. This is because all
 
(7)
feedbacks belong to the actuator (motor). Also,
manipulator model is not required to form the
Taking the Laplace transform of equation 7
control law. As a result, the control law is simple,
!"  = #   $%    &  
fast, and more accurate in comparison with the
(8)
equation 2. The control law requires only a
feedback of actuator current and position.
Where ω is the angular velocity
Moreover, the electrical signals can be measured
more convenient and more precise than
Resolving the equations with the help of the
mechanical signals. This control law can be used
actuator block diagram in Fig. 3 and solving for
for tracking control of a high-speed robot since
the relationship between voltage input Vin and
this approach is free of manipulator model. The
the position of the shaft θm in the closed loop
actuator dynamic equation is used for precise
system yields the actuator dynamic model as
control of each degree of freedom of a robotic
derived in [6,15]. When the motor is not
arm as applied in [16].
connected to the robotic manipulator joint
mechanism (i.e. Tl=0), its dynamic model does
not include the inertia due to the linkage or load.
Combining the mechanical and electrical
subsystem dynamics of the motor, therefore
actuator dynamic model becomes:

  
  =  
( *
= #  $%   & θ )
(9)
!"

The model for the variable   becomes:

  = $%   +  #%    $%  , 
#-./0−1/ 2) (10)

Where, Jm is the motor inertia, Ra is the actuator Fig. 5. Mechanical subsystems of the motor
resistance, La is the actuator inductance, Kt is the and link gears
torque constant, Ke is the back emf constant, Bm

ω) = θ ) is the velocity of the motor.

is the frictional damping coefficient of motor, The mechanical subsystems of the actuator and
the robot arm are connected at the actuator and
link gears as shown in Fig. 5. The coupling of the
3.3 Robotic Manipulator Joint Dynamic actuator dynamics and link dynamics at the
Model gears in each independent joint is achieved as
follows.
According to Fateh [7], there are some problems
in implementing the control law presented in The sum of torques at the motor gear gives:

∑ /4
50 -/ /ℎ0 .4/4 0- =  
equation 2. This control law is not complete since
some terms such as frictional torques have been
 −  8 =   
 −  
omitted for simplicity and reducing the computing
  
     8 = 
time, and some terms are not precise. Therefore,
applying this control law cannot provide a perfect (11)
linear and decoupled system, and due to
inaccuracy in model, errors will be produced. The sum of torques at the robot arm gear gives:

∑ /4
50 -/ /ℎ0 92: 0- = 

Moreover, implementing the control law requires

 8 − 
 = 

feedbacks of all joint positions and their


 
 =  8
derivatives. Also, the control strategy is complex
since the system is highly coupled and multi- (12)
input/multi-output. The tracking error increases

6
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

8 = 
 
 / (13)  = @< = A

<
(16)
'

 = @ <= A


Substituting equation 13 into equation 11 yields;
<'
  
    
 
  = 
(17)
<'
<
(14)
  = @ = A

<
<'
(18)
The gear kinematics for the motor gear and link
gear is as follows
Substituting equations 16, 17 and 18 into
= = =
<' >' ? ? equation 14, yields:
<= >= '
(15)
'

@< =    A
 @< =    A
 = 
< <' < <'
<=  <=
(19)
Where rm is the radius of motor gear, rl is the ' '

radius of link gear, Nm is the number of teeth of

Combining the mechanical and electrical
link gear, F is the contact force,  is the link
the motor gear, Nl is the number of teeth of the
subsystems of the actuator and arm dynamics
inertia,  is the link damping coefficient. yields:

@
<=
 
<'
 A
@
<=
 
<'
 A
 =  
Therefore, the angular position of the link is
B <'  <=  <' <= *
= #  $%   &

<= (20)
!"
derived from the motor position and the gear
<'
ratio of motor and link gears as:

The transfer function model of the joint dynamic model becomes:

GH
 = C DC@    A   @    AE $%   #  &  FE
<= <' <= <'
Κ
<' <= <' <=
(21)

Hence, the joint I and II dynamic models becomes:

GH
H = C DC@ H  H  , A   @ H  H AE $%H   #H   &H H FE
<=I <'I <=I <'I
ΚH
<'I <=I <'I <=I
GH
, = C DC@< = ,  , A   @< = ,  , AE $%,   #,   &, , FE
< <' < <'
<= <=
Κ,
' '

The dynamic model for joint torque control relating angular position of the link and the voltage input
into the actuator becomes:
GH

= C DC@    A   @    AE $%   #  &  FE Κ 
<= <' <= <'
<' <= <' <=
(22)

The multiple SISO model for the articulated robotic manipulator dynamic description becomes:
GH

H = C DC@ H  H  , A   @ H  H AE $%H   #H   &H H FE ΚH 
<=I <'I <=I <'I
<'I <=I <'I <=I
GH

, = C DC@ ,  , A   @ ,  , AE $%,   #,   &, , FE Κ, 
<= <' <= <'
<' <= <' <=

In order to determine the effective viscous damping coefficient at the joints, the following design
specifications must be met.

• Peak gain>>0 (i.e., peak gain must be very much greater than zero)
• Both Gain Margin (GM) and Phase Margin (PM) must exist
• PM should be greater than GM

7
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

The arm parameters are as follows: mass of link N.m/rad/sec, 0.01N.m/rad/sec and 0.001 N.m/
1 (m1) =1kg, mass of link 1 (m2)=0.06kg, length rad/sec the system satisfied the design

taking  =  . Table 2 shows a summary of joint

of link 1 (L1) = 1m, length of link 1 (L2) = 0.9m, specifications but when B=0.001N.m/rad/sec, the
system achieved highest peak gain of 418dB
I and II design parameters. compared with when B=0.1 and 0.01N.m/rad/
sec.
Table 2. The parameters of joints I and II
Table 3. Damping coefficient experiment
Parameters Joint I Joint II results for joint I
2 2
Inertia (J) 0.001 Kg-m 0.0003 Kg-m

Inductance $-
Resistance (R) 2.5Ω 3.5Ω B (N.m/rad/sec) GM PM Peak
0.004H 0.001H (dB) (Degree) gain
Current (i) 1A 1A (dB)
Torque 0.1N.m/A 0.05N.m/A 10 128 - 352
constant (km) 0.1 65.5 89.8 392
Electromotive 0.1V.s/rad 0.05V.s/rad 0.01 46.9 78.5 409
force constant 0.001 37.9 42.3 418
(Ke) 0.00001 35.9 34.6 420

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 4. Damping coefficient experiment

results for joint II
Figs. 5 and 6 show the Bode plots of the open
loop gain of the robotic manipulator joints I and II B (N.m/rad/sec) GM PM Peak
without a controller. Tables 3 and 4 were (dB) (Degree) gain
generated from the MATLAB bode plots of Fig. 5 (dB)
and Fig. 6. 10 148 - 343
0.1 88.6 90 383
From the joint I experimental results in Fig. 6 and 0.01 68.5 87.8 402
Table 3, PM does not exist when B=10 0.001 52.5 44.3 418
N.m/rad/sec, and it was less than GM when 0.00001 45 19.7 426
B=0.00001N.m/rad/sec. However, when B=0.1
Bode Diagram
50

-50
Magnitude (dB)

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-90
G11(B=10)
G12(B=0.1)
-135 G13(B=0.01)
Phase (deg)

G14(B=0.001)
G15(B=0.00001)
-180

-225

-270
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 6. Joint I damping coefficient results

8
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

Bode Diagram
50

-50
Magnitude (dB)

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-90
G21(B=10)
G22(B=0.1)
-135 G23(0.01)
Phase (deg)

G24(0.001)
G25(0.0001)
-180

-225

-270
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 7. Joint II damping coefficient results

From the joint II experimental results in Fig. 7 COMPETING INTERESTS
and Table 4, PM does not exist when B=10
N.m/rad/sec, and it was less than GM when Authors have declared that no competing
B=0.001N.m/rad/sec and 0.00001N.m/rad/sec. interests exist.
On the other hand, when B=0.1N.m/rad/sec and
0.01N.m/rad/sec the system satisfied the design REFERENCES
specifications, however when B=0.01N.m/rad/ 1. Grage JJ. Introduction to Robotics
sec, the system achieved highest peak gain of Mechanics and Control, 3rd Ed, Prentice
402dB compared with when B=0.1 N.m/rad/sec. Hall; 2005.
2. Filip V. Dynamic modeling of manipulators
5. CONCLUSION with symbolic computational method. The
Publishing House of the Romanian
The dynamic model for the joint torque control of Academy, Proceedings of the Romanian
the 3DOF articulated manipulator was achieved Academy, Series A. 2008;9(3):1.
based on the independent joint approach. This 3. Iqgal and Author. Dynamic modeling and
method is simple and more complete, and also it simulation for control of a cylindrical robotic
involves a more and better dynamic description manipulator. Informatics Complex ICCC,
of the manipulator comprising of the electrical Islamabad. 1995:38.
and mechanical dynamics of the joint actuator 4. Lewis FL, Dawson DM, Abdallah CT.
and the mechanical dynamics of the links. Robotic manipulator control, theory and
Therefore, the control law can be applied to the nd
practice. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2
inputs of the controller which makes it more Ed. 2004;152-158.
preferable to be employed in practice for 5. Melchiorri C. Dynamic model of robotic
controller design than using only the robot arm manipulators. University of Bologna.
model. The damping coefficient for the joint 6. Alassar AZ. Modeling and control of 5DOF
torque model was determined based on the robot arm using supervisory control.
stability characteristics of the system on bode University of Gaza. 2010;1-105.
plots. The influences of the nonlinearities, 7. Fateh MM. On the voltage-based control of
unmodeled and neglected dynamics in the model robot manipulators. International Journal of
are treated as disturbances and the controller is Control, Automation and Systems. 2008;
designed to be robust against them. This 6(5):702-712.
approach is therefore recommended for robust 8. An C, Atkeson C, Hollerbach J. Model
control of robotic manipulators under based control of a robot manipulator. MIT
uncertainties. Press, Cambridge, MA; 1988.

9
 Agbaraji et al.; PSIJ, 15(1): 1-10, 2017; Article no.PSIJ.33578

9. Schiller Z. Time-energy optimal control of dissipativity theory. Modern Applied

articulated systems with geometric path Science. 2008;2(4):95.
constraints. Journal of Dynamic Systems, 21. Biradar R, Kiran MC. The dynamics of
Measurement and Control, Trans. ASME. fixed base and free-floating robotic
1996;118:139-143. manipulator. International Journal of
10. Torres S, Mendez JA, Acosta L, Becerra Engineering Research & Technology
VM. On improving the performance in the (IJERT). 2012;1(5):1.
robust controllers for robot manipulators 22. Izadbakhsh A, Fateh MM. A model-free
with parametric disturbances. Control robust control approach for robot
Engineering Practice. 2007;15:557-566. manipulator. World Academy of Science,
11. Spong MW. On the robust control of robot Engineering and Technology; 2007.
manipulators, IEEE trans. On Automatic 23. Helal KM, Atia MRA, Abu El-Sebah MI.
Control. 1992;37(11):1782-1786. Gain scheduling control with multi-loop PID
12. Miro JV, White AS. Modeling an industrial for 2-DOF arm robot trajectory control.
manipulator a case study. Simulation IRES 23rd International Conference, Dubai,
Practice and Theory. 2002;9:293-319. UAE. 2015;19.
13. Spong MW, Vidyasagar M. Robot 24. Eppinger SD, Seering WP. Three dynamic
dynamics and control. John Wiley & Sons, problems in robot force control. IEEE.
Inc; 1989. 1992;8(6):751-758.
14. Spong MW, Hutchinson S, Vidyasagar M. 25. Crowder RM. The industrial robot; 1998.
Robot modeling and control. John Wiley & (Retrieved on October 19, 2016)
Sons, Inc., 1st Ed; 2006. Available:http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~r
15. Ovy EG, Seeraji S, Ferdous SM, mc1/robotics/arirobot.htm
Rokonuzzaman M. A novel design of an 26. Melchiorri C. Control of robot manipulators.
ATmega32L microcontroller based University of Bologna; 2006.
controller circuit for the motion control of a 27. Voung ND, Ang MH. Dynamic model
robot arm actuated by DC motors. Cyber identification for industrial robots. Acta
Journals: Journal of Selected Areas in Polytechnica Hungarica. 2009;6(5):64.
Robotics and Control (JSRC), April Edition. 28. Richter H. Robot dynamics and control.
2011;1-8. MCE 503:3-6.
16. Agrawal R, Kabiraj K, Singh R. Modeling a 29. Cheng L, Hou ZG, Tan, Liu D, Zou AM.
controller for an articulated robotic arm. Multi-agent based adaptive consensus
Scientific Research, Intelligent Control and control for multiple manipulators with
Automation. 2012;3:207-210. kinematic uncertainties. 2008;189-194.
17. Salem FA. Modeling, simulation and 30. Lin F, Brandt RD. An optimal control
control issues for a robot ARM; Education approach to robust control of robot
and Research, I.J. Intelligent Systems and manipulators. National Science
Applications. 2014;4:26-39. Foundation. 1997;1-19.
18. Garulli A, Tesi A, Vicino A, Uncertainty 31. Kim CS, Lee KW. Robust control of robot
models for robustness analysis. Control manipulators using dynamic compensators
Systems, Robotics, And Automation – Vol. under parametric uncertainty. International
IX. Journal of Innovative Computing,
19. Liu CS, Peng H. Disturbance observer Information and Control. 2011;7(7):4129-
based tracking control. Journal of Dynamic 4137.
Systems, Measurement, and Control. 32. Liu J, Liu R. Simple method to the dynamic
2000;122:332-335. modeling of industrial robot subject to
20. Wang H, Feng Z, Liu X. Robust tracking constraint. Advances in Mechanical
control of robot manipulator using Engineering. 2016;8(4):4.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2017 Agbaraji et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/19826

10