Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF PID, PD AND FUZZY

CONTROLLERS FOR POSITION CONTROL OF 3-DOF
ROBOT MANIPULATOR
1,2Usman Kabir, 2Mukhtar Fatihu Hamza 2Ado Haruna and 3Gaddafi Sani Shehu
1Department of Computer Engineering, Hussaini Adamu Polytechnic, Kazaure
2Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Bayero University, Kano
3Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
1uk4uk70@gmail.com, 2aharuna.mct@buk.edu.ng, 3gsshehu@abu.edu.ng

Keywords: – ABSTRACT
3-DOF robot Robot manipulators are extensively used in industrial applications because of their immense
manipulator, dynamic model, importance such as in constructions automation. Therefore, designing controllers to suit the
PID, PD, and FLC; intensive purpose of the application is one of the major challenges for control researchers.
This paper presents comparative analysis of three controllers on a 3-DOF robot
Article History: – manipulator. The proportional integral derivative (PID), proportional derivative (PD) and
Received: January, 2019. fuzzy logic (FL) controllers were designed and applied to each of the link of the robot by
Reviewed: April, 2019 simulation. The performance of each control method was assessed using the transient and
Accepted: May, 2019 steady state response characteristics. Comparisons of the results obtained, PID and PD
Published: June, 2019 performed better in terms of Rise Time and Settling Time while the FLC exhibited reduced
overshoot
.
.

1. INTRODUCTION (ASMFC) was implemented on robot manipulator and

compared. It was found that ASMFC is fairly better than
Industrial robot manipulators have widespread SMC and SMFC in terms of rise time, overshoot and
application such as pick and place, welding, painting, settling time [7]. In [8] demonstrated the application of
material handling and many more [1]. Due to huge neural network and fuzzy logic system for on-line
applications of these robots, the need to design and test identification, where an FLC was used for robot position
different control approaches to improve performance control and neural network for on-line identification
through increased precision has become a necessity and during the control of the system. Modelling and
an important research area [2]. To achieve a good computed torque control of 6-DOF robotic arm was
performance and tracking control design, the physical presented in [9].The tracking responses were obtained
characteristics or the mathematical equation for the by applying different inputs to each link. The dynamic
system behaviour has to be developed (i.e dynamic modelling and motion control of three link manipulator
model of the system). This deals with the determination was presented in [10] where a camera for capturing the
of dynamic equation and mapping forces exerted on the motion of the user was employed and PD controller was
system parts as well as with the motion of the robot used for the system control.
manipulator (i.e its joint position, velocity and Performance comparison of PID and FLC was presented
acceleration). These derived mathematical equations in [11] where difference defuzzification strategies of
constitute the dynamic model of robot manipulator [3], FLC were applied and all surpassed that of centre of
[4] gravity and PID demonstrate the superior performance
Another vital aspect of robot manipulators are the in terms of settling time, as compared to FLC, while FLC
control design and which is an area of interest where performed better in terms of overshoot but both
various control methodologies have been proposed. The controllers manage to converge to the desired output.
motion controls of the robot manipulator are usually The conventional PID controller exhibits good
designed to achieve high speed operation, minimum performance for linear system and it is widely employed
tracking error, disturbance rejection and multi- in industry due to its simple structure and robustness in
functionality [5], [6] different operation conditions. However, the accurate
Sliding mode control (SMC), sliding mode fuzzy control tuning of the parameters of PID becomes difficult
(SMFC) and adaptive sliding mode fuzzy control
18
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
because most of industrial plants are highly complex and
have some issues such as nonlinearities, time delays, and
higher orders. Due to the complexity of most industrial
plants and the limitation of PID controller, an
unprecedented interest was diverted to the applications
of the FLC. This is because it uses expert knowledge and
its control action is described by linguistic rules. Also,
the FLC does not require the complete mathematical
model of the system to be controlled and it can work
properly with nonlinearities and uncertainties. In this
work, a comparative analysis of PID, PD and FLC on a
3-DOF planar robot manipulator is presented. The three
controllers were designed and implemented on the
system which constitutes the shoulder, elbow and wrist
for trajectory tracking. Performance comparisons of the
controllers were carried out on each link by evaluating
the transient and steady state characteristics.
Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of 3-DOF Robot
Manipulator
2. DYNAMICS MODEL
where,
Dynamic Analysis of a robot manipulator is an important
𝑎11 = {𝑚1 𝐿21 + 𝑚2 (𝐿21 + 2𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 + 𝐿22 ) +
stage to determine the relationship between joint
𝑚3 (𝐿21 + 2𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 + 𝐿1 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 𝐿22 +
torques/force applied by actuators and the position,
4𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 ) + 𝐽1 + 𝐽2 + 𝐽3 } ... (3)
velocity and acceleration of the system with respect to
𝑎12 = +{𝑚2 (𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 + 𝐿22 ) + 𝑚3 (2𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 +
time which describe the dynamic parameters in order to
𝐿1 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 𝐿22 + 4𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 ) + 𝐽2 +
efficiently design, control and simulate the system [1],
𝐽3 } ... (4)
[12]. The dynamic equations of the system are resolve
from Figure (1) Using Lagrange approach and is usually 𝑎13 = {𝑚3 (𝐿1 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 2𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 )}
presented the final output as ... (5)
𝜏 = 𝑀(𝑞)𝑞̈ + 𝐶(𝑞𝑞̇ )𝑞̇ + 𝐺(𝑞) ... (1) 𝑎21 = {𝑚2 (𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 + 𝐿22 ) + 𝑚3 (2𝐿1 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃2 +
Where, 𝜏 represent the control input torque, 𝑀(𝑞)𝑞̈ 𝐿1 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 𝐿22 + 4𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 ) + 𝐽2 +
represent 𝑛 × 𝑛 symmetric and positive definite inertia 𝐽3 } ... (6)
2 2 2
matrix, 𝐶(𝑞𝑞̇ )𝑞̇ represent 𝑛 × 1vector of centrifugal and 𝑎22 = {𝑚2 𝐿2 + 𝑚3 (𝐿2 + 4𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿3 ) + 𝐽2 +
coriolis and 𝐺(𝑞) represent 𝑛 × 1 vector of gravitational 𝐽3 } ... (7)
torque. 𝑎23 = {𝑚3 (2𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 ) + 𝐽3 } ... (8)
q is n × 1 vector of joint position, q̇ − is a n 𝑎31 = {𝑚3 (𝐿1 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 2𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 )}
× 1 of joint velocity, and q̈ − is ... (9)
× 1 of joint acceleration 𝑎32 = {𝑚3 (2𝐿2 𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃3 + 2𝐿23 ) + 𝐽3 } ... (10)
𝑛 =Represent the number of degree of freedom of the 𝑎33 = {2𝑚3 𝐿23 + 𝐽3 } ... (11)
2
robot manipulator [1], [8], [10], [13], ̇ ̇ ̇
𝑏1 = −𝑚2 𝐿1 𝐿2 (2𝜃1 𝜃2 + 𝜃2 )sin 𝜃2 −
2
The final dynamic equations which were obtained 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿2 (2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 + 𝜃̇2 )sin 𝜃2 − 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿3 (2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 +
through mathematical derivation of the system in Figure 2 2
1 were presented based on the matrix notation of 𝜃̇2 + 2𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 + 2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 + 𝜃̇3 ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) −
2
equation (1) 2𝐿2 𝐿3 (2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 + 2𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 + 𝜃̇3 )sin𝜃3 ... (12)
𝑎11 𝑎12 𝑎13 𝑏1 𝑏2 = −𝑚2 𝐿1 𝐿2 (𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 )sin 𝜃2 −
𝑀(𝑞) = [𝑎21 𝑎22 𝑎23 ], 𝐶(𝑞, 𝑞̇ ) = [𝑏2 ] , 𝑔(𝑞) = 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿2 (𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 )sin 𝜃2 − 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 +
𝑎31 𝑎32 𝑎33 𝑏3
𝑔1 𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 )𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) − 2𝐿2 𝐿3 (2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 + 2𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 +
2 2
[𝑔2 ] ... (2) 𝜃̇3 )sin𝜃3 + 𝑚2 𝐿1 𝐿2 (𝜃̇1 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 )sin 𝜃2 +
𝑔3 2 2
𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿2 (𝜃̇1 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 )sin 𝜃2 + 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 +
𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) ... (13)

19
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
𝑏3 = −𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 )𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) − 𝑔2 = 𝑚2 𝑔(𝐿2 cos(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 )) + 𝑚3 𝑔(𝐿2 cos(𝜃1 +
2
2𝑚3 𝐿2 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 + 𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 )sin𝜃3 + 𝑚3 𝐿1 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 + 𝜃2 ) + 𝐿3 cos(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 + 𝜃3 )) ... (16)
2
𝑔3 = 𝑚3 𝐿3 𝑔 cos(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) ... (17)
𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃2 + 𝜃3 ) + 2𝑚3 𝐿2 𝐿3 (𝜃̇1 +
2 The block diagram was designed and simulated using
2𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2 + 𝜃̇1 𝜃̇3 + 𝜃̇2 + 𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3 ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃3 ... (14)
𝑔1 = 𝑚1 𝐿1 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃1 + 𝑚2 𝑔(𝐿1 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃1 + 𝐿2 cos(𝜃1 + Matlab simulink environment and it is presented in
𝜃2 )) + 𝑚3 𝑔(𝐿1 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃1 + 𝐿2 cos(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 ) + Figure 2. Also Open loop response for all the three links
𝐿3 cos(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 + 𝜃3 )) ... (15) are presented in figure 3.

Figure 2: Matlab Model of 3-DOF Robot Manipulator

20
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
comprise rule base and data base and defuzzification is
the inverse of fuzzification [5], [11], [14], [15].

T1FLS
Rules

Fuzzy Fuzzy
Crisp Input sets output sets Crisp
Fuzzifier Inference Defuzzifier
inputs outputs

Figure 4: Constituents of Fuzzy Logic Controller

In this work, the Sugeno method was adopted and two

Figure 3: Open Loop Response for the Three Links inputs were used, these inputs are control input for
position error and derivative of position error of the
3. PD AND PID CONTROLLER links and one linear output.
DESIGN The fuzzy controller rule base are tabulated in Table
(1) and 9 rule base were formulated as presented below
In this section, PD and PID controllers are
implemented for adequate control of the 3-DOF Robot Table 1: Rules Notation
manipulator. Three PD and PID controllers were 𝑒̇ /𝑒 P Z N
designed one for each link because all the three links P PB P Z
depend on each other.
Z P Z N
The PD and PID controllers have the following form
respectively N Z N NB
𝑢𝑖 = 𝑘𝑝𝑖 𝑒𝑖 + 𝑘𝑑𝑖 𝑒̇𝑖 ... (18)

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑘𝑝𝑖 𝑒𝑖 + 𝑘𝐼𝑖 𝑒𝑖̈ + 𝑘𝑑𝑖 𝑒̇𝑖 ... (19) where, P is positive, N is negative, Z is zero, PB is
Where, 𝑘𝑝 is proportional gain, 𝑘𝐼 is integral gain, 𝑘𝑑 positive big, and NB is negative big
is derivative gain,
ei is angle error obtained from θri − θi , 4.1 Controller Rules Base
ė d i is derivative error obtained from θri − θd i ,
ë I i is integral error obtained fromθri IF THEN Rule base are generated base of the
observations of the system behaviour. Table 1
− θI i and eri is reference input
described the choices of the linguistics variables eg P,
In case of PD and PID 𝑘𝑝𝑖 , 𝑘𝐼𝑖 , 𝑘𝑑𝑖 are adjusted to have
Z, and N which lead to the generation of 9 rules base
a satisfactory result as shown below. From table 1 it can be seen that “IF
the position error and derivative of position error are
4. FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER positive THEN a Big Positive (PB) force is required.
DESIGN Three membership set for the two inputs and five for
the output are used to describe all the linguistic
The operational techniques for designing fuzzy logic variables as shown in Figure 5 (a), (b) and (c)
controller (FLC) constitute four main units as shown respectively
in Figure 4 such units are Fuzzification, inference
engine, knowledge base and deffuzification. The 1) If 𝑒 is P and 𝑒̇ is P then 𝑢 is PB
fuzzification makes the physical/crisp input data 2) If 𝑒 is P and 𝑒̇ is Z then 𝑢 is P
compatible with fuzzy control rule base in core of the 3) If 𝑒 is P and 𝑒̇ is N then 𝑢 is Z
controller, inference engine perform the control 4) If 𝑒 is Z and 𝑒̇ is P then 𝑢 is P
actions in fuzzy terms according to the information 5) If 𝑒 is Z and 𝑒̇ is Z then 𝑢 is Z
provided by the fuzzification, knowledge base 6) If 𝑒 is Z and 𝑒̇ is N then 𝑢 is N
7) If 𝑒 is N and 𝑒̇ is P then 𝑢 is Z
21
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
8) If 𝑒 is N and 𝑒̇ is Z then 𝑢 is N 4.2 Positions Error Set-Point Tracking
9) If 𝑒 is N and 𝑒̇ is N then 𝑢 is NB

Figure 5 (a), (b) and (c) shows the membership The position error is defined as 𝑒𝑖 = 𝜃𝑟 − 𝜃𝑐 where, 𝜃𝑟
function for the inputs and the output from the Matlab is reference input (set-point), k is gain and 𝜃𝑐 is
Simulink controller system output as illustrate in Figure (6)

Figure 6: Closed Loop Set Point Tracking

(a) 4. SIMULATION RESULTS AND

SYSTEM PARAMETERS
In this section the system parameters were presented,
PD, PID and Sugeno Fuzzy controllers are also
implemented in Matlab/Simulink environment

4.2 System Parameters

Table 2: System Parameters

Variables Values
m1 1kg
m2 1kg
(b) m3 1kg
L1 0.5m
(c)
L2 0.5m
L3 0.5m
J1 0.5kgm2
J2 0.5kgm2
J3 0.5kgm2
g 9.81m/s 2
Table 2 presented the system parameters used, where
m1, m2 and m3 represent mass of Link1, Link2 and
Link3 of the system respectively, L1, L2, L3 represent
the length of Link1, Link2 and Link3 of the system
respectively, J1, J2, J3 represent the inertia of Link1,
Link2 and Link3 of the system respectively and g
represent gravitational force.

4.3 Controllers Tuning Parameters

Figure 5: Membership Function (a) Input Error(𝑒), Table 3 presents the tuning parameters which were
(b) Input Error dot (𝑒̇ ) and (c) Output (𝑢) obtained through try and error approach,

22
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
Table 3: PID, PD and FLC Tuning Parameters
Controllers
Variables PID PD FLC
Kp 90 76.599 20
1
Kp 100 205 67
2
Kp 75 60.795 65
3
Kd 1 90 21.999 9.275
Kd 2 15 13.799 13.275
Kd 3 15 8.549 11.975
Ki 1 1 - -
Ki 2 1 - -
Ki 3 1 - -

The Tuning parameters were presented in Table 3,

where Kp ,Kp ,Kp represent proportional gains, Figure 8: Link 1 Controllers Output Response
1 2 3
Kd 1 ,Kd 2 ,Kd 3 represent derivative gains and Ki 1 , Ki 2 ,
Ki 3 represent integral gains, for the controllers.
The Fuzzy logic controller simulation diagrams is
presented in figure (7) where the controller is applied
to each link of the robot manipulator

Figure 9: Link 2 Controllers Output Response

Figure 7: FLC Matlab Simulink Blocks

5. OUTPUT RESPONSES
PID, PD and FLC controllers were designed and
implemented in Matlab Simulink Environment. In this
work the performance of each link were compared
with the three controllers.
Figure (8) indicate the responses of the first link of
FLC, PD & PID, Figure (9) indicate the responses of
the second link of FLC, PD & PID and Figure (10)
indicate the responses of the third link of FLC, PD &
PID Figure 10: Link 3 Controllers Output Response

23
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
6. RESULTS COMPARISON
In link 2, it was discovered that, the PID (RT=0.3011)
Step input signals with zero step time were used as set- (ST=0.5264), and PD (RT=0.1215) (ST=0.3642)
point. The simulation results in figure (8), (9) and (10) outperform FLC (RT=1.1373) (ST=2.4064), the PID
show that the output response performance of link1 (OS=0.1790) and FLC (OS=7.2402e-04) outperform
PID, PD and FLC, link 2PID, PD and FLC and link 3 PD (OS=6.5930) while the Steady State Error are
PID, PD and FLC respectively. The response indicated approximately the same (SS≈-0.002).
that all the controllers converged to the set-point
The response parameters, including Rise Time (RT), Table (6) Link 3 Comparison Between PID, PD and
Settling Time (ST), Overshoot (OS) and Steady State FLC
Error (SS) are obtained. Table (4) indicates the
comparison of first link of FLC, PD & PID, Table (5) System Output Controllers
indicates the comparison of second link of the FLC, Characteristics Link 3 Link 3 PD Link 3 FLC
PD & PID and Table (6) indicates the comparison of PID
third link of the FLC, PD & PID Rise Time (s) 0.3583 0.1612 0.6444
Settling Time (s) 0.6832 0.4484 1.4413
Table 4: Link 1 Comparison Between PID, PD and Overshoot (%) 0.1847 4.7933 1.2071e-04
FLC Undershoot (%) 0 0 0
System Output Controllers Steady State Error -0.002 -0.002 -0.003
Characteristics Link 1 Link 1 PD Link 1 FLC
PID
In link 3, it was also discovered that, the PID
Rise Time (s) 0.3149 0.4513 1.8507
(RT=0.3583) (ST=0.6832) and PD (RT=0.1612)
Settling Time (s) 0.6361 1.0213 3.3064 (ST=0.4484) outperform FLC (RT=0.6444)
Overshoot (%) 0.1395 0 2.2594e-04 (ST=1.4413), the PID (OS=0.1847) and FLC
Undershoot (%) 1.3941 16.1508 0 (OS=1.2071e-04) has less overshoot as compared to
Steady State Error -0.002 -0.001 PD (4.7933) and also the Steady State Error are
0
approximately the same.

In general, it was observed that all the three controllers

In link 1, it was discovered that, the PID (RT=0.3149) were able to effectively track the set-point. The FLC
(ST=0.6361), and PD (RT=0.4513) (ST=1.0213) has better performance in terms of overshoot as
outperform FLC (RT=1.8507) (ST=3.3064), the PD compared to the convectional PD and PID. In terms of
(OS=0) (SS=0), and FLC (OS=2.2594e-04) (SS=- Rise Time and Settling Time, however, the PD and
0.001) outperform PID (OS=0.1395) (SS=-0.002). PID showed improved performance when compared
with the FLC. At lower order system both the
Table (5) Link 2 Comparison Between PID, PD and convectional PID and FLC can work effectively.
FLC
7. CONCLUSION
System Output Controllers
Characteristics Link 2 Link 2 PD Link 2 FLC In this study, three different position control
PID methodologies have been designed and analysed on a
Rise Time (s) 0.3011 0.1215 1.1373 3-DOF robot manipulator. The PID, PD and FLC
Settling Time (s) 0.5264 1.3642 2.4064 controllers were applied to each link of the robot
Overshoot (%) 0.1790 6.5930 7.2402e-04 manipulator and performance comparisons were made
Undershoot (%) 0.0028 0
using transient and steady state characteristics. The
0 results showed that all three controllers were able to
Steady State Error -0.002 -0.001 -0.002
track the setpoint with negligible steady state error.
The PID and PD controllers gave better performance
in terms of the rise time and settling time while the
FLC resulted in decreased overshoot.

24
 Zaria Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria – Nigeria. Vol. 8 No. 1, January-June 2019. ISSN: 0261 – 1570.
REFERENCES

[1] R. H. Mohammed, F. Bendary, and K. Elserafi, [9] S. A. Ajwad, M. I. Ullah, S. A. Ajwad, R. U.

“Trajectory Tracking Control for Robot Islam, U. Iqbal, and J. Iqbal, Modeling and
Manipulator using Fractional Order-Fuzzy- computed torque control of a 6 degree of
PID Controller,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. freedom robotic arm Modeling and Computed
134, no. 15, pp. 22–29, 2016. Torque Control of a 6 Degree of Freedom
[2] S. M. Mahil and A. Al-Durra, “Modeling Robotic Arm, no. October 2015. 2014, pp.
Analysis and Simulation of 2-DOF Robotic 133–138.
Manipulator,” 2016 IEEE 59th Int. Midwest [10] J. Kim, A. S. Lee, K. Chang, and B. Schwarz,
Symp. Circuits Syst. (MWSCAS), 16-19 Oct. Dynamic Modeling and Motion Control of a
2016, Abu Dhabi, UAE, vol. 978-1–5090, Three-Link Robotic Manipulator, no. Icarob.
2016. 2017, pp. 380–383.
[3] V. Filip, “Dynamic Modeling Of Manipulators [11] A. Kharidege, D. Jianbiao, and Y. Zhang,
With Symbolic Computational Method,” Vol. “Performance Study of PID and Fuzzy
9, Pp. 1828–1834, 2008. Controllers for Position Control of 6 DOF arm
[4] N. Pires, Robot Manipulators and Control Manipulator with Various Defuzzification
Systems. 2007. Strategies 2 The Robot Model,” vol. 11, pp. 3–
[5] A. C. Emmanuel and H. C. Inyiama, “A survey 8, 2016.
of controller design methods for a robot [12] A. Rezaee, “Determining PID Controller
manipulator in harsh environments,” vol. 3, Coefficients for the Moving Motor of a Welder
no. 3, pp. 64–73, 2015. Robot Using Fuzzy Logic 1,” vol. 51, no. 2,
[6] F. L. Lewis, D. M. Dawson and C. T. pp. 124–132, 2017.
Abdallah, Robot Manipulator Control Theory [13] Z. Bingül and O. Karahan, A Fuzzy Logic
and Practice. 2004, p. 607. Controller tuned with PSO for 2 DOF robot
[7] F. Piltan, N. Sulaiman, S. H. Haghighi, I. trajectory control, vol. 38, no. 1. 2011, pp.
Nazari, and S. Siamak, “Artificial Control of 1017–1031.
PUMA Robot Manipulator: A Review of [14] A. K. Mandal, Introduction to Control
Fuzzy Inference Engine and Application,” Int. Engineering Modeling Analysis and Design.
J. Control Automation., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 401– New Age International (P) Ltd, 2012.
425, 2011. [15] T. P. Trung, Chen and Guanrong, Introduction
[8] F. Arbaoui, M.L.Saidi, S. Kermiche and H. A. to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control
Abbassi, “Identification and Trajectory Systems. 2001.
Control of a Manipulator Arm Using a Neuro-
Fuzzy Technique,” J. Appl. Sci., vol. 6, no. 10,
pp. 2275–2280, 2006.

25

View publication stats