12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1

INTRODUCTION Robots have been finding applications in many fields in the recent years,

especially in the field of industrial automation. So different kinds of robots find application in the industrial automation process. One such robot is called manipulator, the main purpose of which is to pick and place an object in a specific position. In order to pick and place an object accurately, it is needed to implement a control system algorithm on the manipulator. This chapter deals with a brief survey of various control systems presently used in the manipulator control. The introduction to the control systems is followed by a review of the problems in control system. The later part of the chapter explains the proposed Haar Wavelet approach and the relevant presents the conclusions

2.2 A BRIEF SURVEY OF VARIOUS CONTROL SYSTEMS

In the past few decades, the motion control of the industrial manipulator has been remaining as a central issue in the robotic research area. The purpose of robot control is to maintain the dynamic response of the manipulator in accordance with some pre-specified performance criterion. The motion control can be classified into three major categories for the purpose of discussion.

13

Joint Motion Controls Joint servomechanism Computed torque control technique Minimum time control Variable structure control Non linear decoupled control

Resolved Motion Controls (CARTESIAN SPACE CONTROL) Resolved motion rate control Resolved motion acceleration control Resolved motion force control

Adaptive Controls Model referenced adaptive control Self- tuning adaptive control Adaptive perturbation control with feed forward compensation Resolved motion adaptive control Each of the control methods will be described in the subsequent topics

2.3 JOINT MOTION CONTROL 2.3.1. Joint Servomechanism

Joint servomechanism is basically a proportional plus integral plus derivative control method (PID).

14

With its three-term functionality covering treatment to both transient and steady-state responses, proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control offers the simplest and yet the most efficient solution to many real-world control problems. Since the invention of PID control in 1910, and the Ziegler and Nichols (Z-N) (1942) addressed tuning methods in 1942, the popularity of PID control has increased tremendously. With the advances in digital technology, the science of automatic control now offers a wide spectrum of choices for control schemes. However, more than 90% of industrial controllers are still implemented based on the PID algorithms (Astrom and Hagglund 1995), particularly at low levels. This is because no other controller matches the simplicity, clear functionality, applicability, and ease of use offered by the PID controller. Its wide application has stimulated and sustained the development of various PID tuning techniques, sophisticated software packages, and hardware modules. In order to increase the effectiveness of the controller, the tuning of the PID parameter has to be identified. The selection of these parameters has been addressed by many authors (Toscano 1996; Cominos and Munro 2002). Takegaki and Arimoto (1981) stated that PD control with gravity compensation has been proved to achieve global asymptotic stability whatever be the values of the control gains, there by exploiting the properties of natural systems, namely unconstrained time invariant systems lying in a conservative force field, a class to which the robot arms belongs to. Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984) proposed a proof for the stability of PID control of robot arms which is an extension of the well-known proof of global asymptotic stability of PD control plus gravity compensation. Qu and Dorsey (1991) proposed a similar proof for the uniform ultimate boundedness of the error in the trajectory tracking problem.

Wen and Bayard (1988) claimed that PID control is inadequate to cope with highly nonlinear systems, since the design of the control law is based solely on local arguments worked out on the linearized system. The main drawback of this control

15

method is that the feedback gains are constant and pre-specified. It does not have the capability of updating the feedback gains under varying payloads. Since an industrial robot belongs to a highly nonlinear system, the inertial loading, the coupling between the joints and the gravity effects are all either position dependent or position and velocity dependent terms. The stability and robustness are obtained by tuning PID parameters. The tuning is the basic requirement for obtaining good stability and robustness of this control system.

Literatures related to finding tuning are presented in the subsequent paragraphs.

Siljak (1978).Mills and Goldenberg (1988), Wen and Bayard (1988); Astrom and Hagglund (2001); Paolo Rocco (1996); Katebi and Moradi (2001); Ala Eldin Abdallah Awouda et al (2003); M. H. Moradi (2003); Jing-Chug Shen et al (2004), Dingyu Xue (2007) et al; Su et al (2009). Thiang et al (2009). From the above mentioned papers, it has been observed that the effectiveness of the tuning and robustness are still evolving and new technologies will emerge in future. Furthermore, at a high speed the inertial term may vary drastically. Thus the above control method that uses constant feedback gains to control a nonlinear system does not perform well under varying speeds and pay loads.

2.3.2 Computed Torque Control Technique The research on force control of rigid manipulators began as early as 1960s but, the algorithm was systemized between 1970s to 1980s. Raibert et al (1981) and Mason (1981) developed and divided the force control mainly into hybrid position/force control schemes and impedance control schemes. So, till date, force control of rigid manipulators has been one of the hottest research topic. However, the research on force control of flexible manipulators just began in 1985 by Fukuda. Chiou

16

and Shahinpoor (1988) pointed out that the link flexibility is the main cause of dynamic instability. They have extended their research from planar one-link flexible manipulator to two-link manipulator, analyzing the stability by applying ahybrid position/force control schemes. Matsuno and Yamamoto (1993) have addressed a quasi-static hybrid position/force control scheme and dynamic hybrid position/force control scheme for a planer two DOF manipulator with flexible second link. For force control of flexible manipulators, the inverse kinematic task is an essential, and thus has been proposed by Svinin and Uchiyama (1994). In end point force control strategies, the force signals are measured by a wrist sensor. The sensor output is fed back to the controller to alter the system performance. Many such closed - loop systems have been built using various force control algorithm and more problems on stability have been experimented. A theoretical treatment of environmentally imposed constraints is provided by Matson (1981) who also suggests a control methodology to augment these natural constraints with an appropriate set of artificial constraints. Raibert et al (1981) developed hybrid control architecture capable of implementing Masons theory. Jin-Soo Kim et al (1996) discussed about the dynamic properties of robot system namely instability and limited performance. Fu et al (1987) also discussed about computed torque control. A Control scheme makes direct use of the complete dynamic model of the manipulator to cancel the effect of gravity, coriolis force, friction, and manipulator inertia tensor. It is similar to PID control laws which have two portions a model based portion and a servo portion. From the above literature, it can be observed that the computer torque controller employs nonlinear feedback to linearize error dynamics and this provides better trajectory tracking performance than the linear controllers since it is based on a more accurate dynamic model. But the biggest limitation of this approach is that, it is computationally more intensive and hence, highly expensive as well. Inaccuracy in the

17

parameters of the manipulator in the dynamic model is the other factor, which limits the manipulators performance. 2.3.3 Minimum Time Control

For manufacturing tasks, it is desirable to move a manipulator of its highest speed to minimize the task cycle time. The problem of minimum time control of a robot manipulator concerns with the determination of control effort and the corresponding trajectories that will drive the end effectors of a manipulator from the given initial positions to the final positions within a minimum span of time.

Kahn and Roth (1971) were the first to study this problem and investigate the problem of optimal time control for manipulators. They proposed an approximate solution to this problem which gave the better results in near minimum time control. These problems can be categorized in terms of different constraints that affect manipulator motion as follows: There are constraints on the intermediate configurations of the robot arms due to which the manipulator either follows a specified path or performs the movement in order to avoide collisions with the obstacles in the work space. The motion path space is obstacle-free and unconstrained between two end points.

For the first category, certain algorithms have been proposed for minimum time control of robot manipulator along a specified geometric path (Shin and Mckay 1985; Bobrow et al 1985; Chen and Desrochers 1989; Shiller and Dubowsky 1991).

18

Solving the minimum time control problem for the second category represents a difficult and elusive point to point minimum time control problem. The approach to this problem can be categorized under the following two groups. Dynamic programming or space search methods. Calculation of variation based methods. The first group includes certain approximation methods such as artificial intelligence (AI) approaches (Sahar and Hollerbach 1985; Rajan 1985; Shiller and Dubowsky 1991) and non linear parameters optimization methods. The basic is the use of an initial feasible trajectory in conjunction with an exhaustive search of the unconstrained motion between two end points.

The calculation of variation is based on methods that use the techniques of variational calculus and apply Pontryagins maximum principle to reduce the time optimization into a two point boundary value problem. There arises a difficulty in finding a solution for the two point boundary value problem. Since the state and the constant variables at the initial values and final values are only partially known. Hence, initial values must be guessed to match the correct set of final values. Most of the robot manipulators being nonlinear systems, the numerical methods are used to solve the nonlinear two point boundary value problem. It was found that, it is highly sensitive to the initial constant values that were guessed. However, it is extremely difficult to have any simple interpolation or physical meaning. In general, the values of time optimal control solutions are very difficult to obtain.

Meier and Bryson (1990) suggested a fast algorithm for a planer two-link manipulator to travel a specified distance in minimum time with unspecified initial and final position. This method reduces the computation time by forcing the control inputs to be bang-bang on both regular and singular intervals, and thus makes it feasible to

19

find minimum time solution for various initial and final positions and various dynamic properties of a robot.

Lin (1992) proposed an efficient two-level parallel algorithm for solving the general time optimal problem in discrete form. Chen et al (1993) developed an algorithm for computing the time optimal trajectory for robotic point to point motion based on perturbation and continuation methods. Both non-singular and singular cases can be handled by converting the original time optimal problem into a perturbed time optimal problem.

Yang (1993) proposed a two step Lyapunov approach for generating near minimal time point to point motion of a robot manipulator. This method is based on the observation of the kinetic energy mechanisms in minimum time operations of robot manipulators. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an exact closed form solution to the problem of point to point minimum time control motion of robot manipulator, due to the nonlinearity and the coupled nature of the robot manipulator dynamics. The available numerical solutions are computational intensive, required good initial boundary values guesses, or sensitive to the time step or some other variables in the numerical procedures. In particular, the question of existence of time optimal control containing singular arcs is open. As a result, the practical applicability of available methods is very limited. (Tao Fan 2003). This control method is usually too complex to be used for manipulator with 4 or more degrees of freedom and neglects the effects of the unknown external loads. 2.3.4. Variable Structure Control

20

Variable structure control (VSC) of robotic manipulators has been receiving more and more attention recently. The variable structure system (VSS) has several interesting and important properties that cannot be easily obtained by other approaches. Increasing demand for high performance robots has lead to the development of various advance control techniques. Two general controller approaches may be considered for robot manipulators, the model-based approach and the non-model-based approach. The model based controllers consider some of the system structures in their designs. In contrast non-model-based controllers do not take account of the system properties. The later group of controllers has been largely used in industry because of the ease of implementation and relatively good performances. However the increasing demand for high speed response and accuracy leads to more and more interest in the model-based controllers. The idea behind model-based controllers are uses the dynamic equations of the system as feed forward terms of the control algorithm, transforming the non-linear system into a new linear system incorporating the robot and its controller. This linearization is only effective if the exact dynamic equations are available, which in practice not the case is as uncertainties on the parameters as well as on the model equations exist. To deal with these imperfections, a robust algorithm can be used.

Russian authors initially proposed the VS theory in the 60's using the mathematical work of Filippov (Filippov 1964). Several researchers have been studying it, both in continuous time (DeCarlo et al 1988; Fu and Liao 1990; Utkin 1992) and in discrete time (Gao Wang and Homaifa 1995).VS controllers provide an effective and robust way for controlling nonlinear plants and its roots are the bangbang and relay control theory (DeCarlo Zak and Matthews 1988). The term VS control arose because the controller's structure is intentionally changed according with some rule to obtain the desired plant behaviour. Due to this structure change, the resulting control law is nonlinear.

21

Young (1978) proposed the hierarchy approach to the control of robotic manipulators. Slotine and Sastry (1983) developed a methodology of feedback control to achieve accurate tracking of manipulators. Yeung and Chen (1988) and Chen, Mita and Wakui (1990) proposed some control algorithms where the inverse of inertia matrix was not required. Young (1988) presented a variable structure model following control (VSMFC) design for robotic applications. Leung, Zhou and Su (1991) provided an adaptive VSMFC design for robot manipulators which did not require knowledge of nonlinear robotic systems.

Accurate trajectory following in robotics is an important problem, and many control algorithms using VSC. and sliding mode have been proposed by (Slotine et al 1983; Bailey et al 1987; Wijesoma et al 1990; Yi-Feng Chen et al 1990; Gao et al 1993; and Yu Tang 1998). The limitation with the use of sliding mode is the high frequency switching, commonly known as chattering. Chattering is unacceptable in robotics as it may excite unmodeled high frequency modes, which could damage the robot manipulator and high frequency plant dynamics (Kwatny and Siu 1987). The general approach to overcome the problem is to replace the non-linear switching function by a smooth one as in (Slotine et al 1991 and Ambrosino et al 1984). This method however seriously alters the performance of the controller, because of the high degree of smoothness needed to completely overcome chattering.

There exist several techniques to eliminate chattering. The widely-adopted approach to chattering-free VSS is the so-called boundary layer one, where the discontinuous VSS control laws sign function is approximated using saturation nonlinearity within small vicinity around the sliding surface (Slotine and Li 1991; Hung et al 1993). Unfortunately, boundary layer controllers do not guarantee asymptotic stability but rather uniform ultimate boundedness (Corless and Leitmann 1981; Esfandiari and Khalil 1991). As a consequence, there exists a trade-off between

22

the smoothness of control signals and the control accuracy. Some boundary layer width modification techniques to improve tracking precision are discussed in (Slotine and Li 1991; Arashima et al 1986; Yu et al 1994; Chen et al 2002). Nevertheless, these proposed methods in practice lead to a computational burden when implemented, or are applicable only to linear systems. The proposed research uses these control system to position the robot arm accurately.

2.3.5

Non Linear Decoupled Control

There is a substantial body of nonlinear control theory which allows one to design a near optimal control strategy for mechanical manipulators. Most of the existing robot control algorithms emphasize compensation of the interactions among the links, e.g., the computed torque technique. Hemami and Camana (1976) applied the non linear feedback control technique to a simple locomotion system which has a particular class of nonlinearity (Sine, cosine and polynomial ) and obtained decoupled subsystems, postural stability, and desired periodic trajectories. Their approach is different from the method of linear system decoupling where the system to be decoupled must be linear. Saridis and Lee (1979) proposed an iterative algorithm for sequential improvement of a non linear suboptimal control law. To achieve such a high quality of control, this method also required a consider amount of computational time. Falb and Wolovich (1967), Freund (1982) applied this scheme to compute nonlinear decoupled controller for robot manipulator. If the manipulator is considered as six independent, decouple, second order, time invariant systems, it is easy to compute and estimation of parameters are easy. But practically possible under some extend only. Modi and Karray (1995) implemented non linear decoupled control system in to space platform in the presence of induced disturbances and the results suggest an unstable behaviour of the uncontrolled system in the presence of the manipulator maneuvers. Yuan et al (2002) uses these control systems in addition to the fuzzy controller to avoid

23

disturbances in cart- pole and Ball beam systems. Hung et al (2007) proposed a neural adaptive based algorithm with decoupled controller to achieve asymptotic stability in cart- pole and Ball beam systems. Newton-Euler equation of motion is used to

estimate parameters of the control system. In general, these control systems exhibits unavoidable disturbances and instability.

2.4.

RESOLVED MOTION CONTROLS

In many applications, resolved motion control, which commands the manipulator hands to move in a desired Cartesian direction in a coordinate position and rate control. Resolved motion means that the motions of various joint motors are combined and resolved in to separately controlled hand motion along the world coordinate axes. This implies several joint motors must run simultaneously at different time varying rates in order to achieve desired coordinated hand motion along any world coordinate axes. This enables the user to specify the direction and speed along any arbitrarily oriented path for the manipulator to follow. This motion control greatly simplifies the specification of the sequence of motions for completing a task because users are usually more adapted to the Cartesian coordinate system. The problem of finding the location of the hand is reduced to finding the position and orientation of the hand coordinate frame with respect to the inertial frame of the manipulator. Under this system, there are three kinds control system namely resolved motion rate control, resolved motion acceleration control and resolved motion force control.

2.4.1. Resolved Motion Rate Control

It means that the motions of the various joint motors are combined and run simultaneously at different varying time rates in order to achieve steady hand motion

24

along any world coordinate axis. This is required to compute the inverse Jacobian matrix. This control system was initiated by Whitney (1969). Luh et al (1980) extends the concept of resolved motion rate control to include acceleration control. Klein et al (1983) and Das et al (1988) discussed about resolved motion rate control to solve the inverse kinematics problem. The computation of Jacobian is additional computation which leads to increase the computation time and also complexity and still the research is being carried out to compute Jacobian matrix.

2.4.2. Resolved Motion Acceleration Control

It presents an alternative position control which deals directly with the position and orientation of the hand of a manipulator. Luh et al (1980) extends the concept of resolved motion rate control to include acceleration control and stated as, In order to cope with non linear and coupled nature of the manipulator dynamic model, inverse dynamic control can be pursued with consists of designing a model based compensating action which globally linearizes and decouples the mechanical system in terms of resolved task space acceleration. The computation of rotation matrix and end effectors position vectors very complex task. The drawback of this approach is the occurrence of representation of singularities. Caccavale et al (1998) reviewed about the resolved acceleration control technique for the tracking control problem of robot manipulator in the task space. The stability analysis, computational burden and tracking performance for various acceleration controls are in order concerning the pros and cons of each scheme. They stated that, there is no guarantee to avoid the occurrence of representation singularities even when good end effectors orientation tracking is achieved. Jinding Tan et al (2004) proposed a singularity-free tracking algorithm for robot manipulator using hybrid approach. Musa Mailah et al (2005) proposed a new algorithm called resolved acceleration control and active force control. In this they have stated that resolved acceleration control was designed for handling the

25

kinematics problem and active force control was serial designed to facilitate the dynamic aspects. Kim et al (2009) discussed path tracking control for underactuated AUVs and found that the initial stage error is maximum. This control system uses Newton Euler equations of motion to find out the errors in position and velocities. These control methods are characterized by extensive computational requirements; singularities associated with the Jacobian matrix and need to plan a manipulator hand trajectory with acceleration information.

2.4.3. Resolved Motion Force Control

The basic concept of this type of control scheme is to determine the applied torque to the joint actuators in order to perform the Cartesian position control of the robot arm. Wu and Paul (1982) developed these control system. The advantages of this controller is that the control is not based on the complicated dynamics equation of motion of the manipulator and still has the ability to compensate for changing arm configurations, gravity loading forces on the links and internal friction.

In general, the resolved motion control lies in the fact that the inverse Jacobian matrix requires intensive computation.

2.5.

ADAPTIVE CONTROL

Most of the schemes discussed in the previous sections control the arm at the hand or joint level and emphasize nonlinear compensations of the interaction forces between the various joints. These control algorithms sometimes are inadequate because they require accurate modeling of the robot arm dynamics and neglect the changes of the load in a task cycle. These changes in the pay load of the controlled system often

26

are significantly enough to render the above feedback control strategies ineffective. The result is reduced servo response speed and damping, which limits the precision and speed of the end effectors. The use of wide range of manipulator and varying pay loads requires the consideration of adaptive control techniques. The basic idea of adaptive control is to change values of the gains or parameters in the control law according to some on line algorithm. In this way the controller can learn an appropriate set of parameters during the course of its operation. (Spong and Vidyasagar 2008).

2.5.1. Model Referenced Adaptive Control

Among various control methods, the model referenced adaptive control is the mostly widely used and it is also relatively easy to implement. The concept of model referenced adaptive control is based on selecting an appropriate reference model and adaptation which modifies the feedback gain to the actuators of actual system.

Dubowsky and DesForges (1979) proposed a simple model reference adaptive control for the control of mechanical manipulators. In their analysis, the payload is taken into consideration by combining it to the final link, and the end effector dimension is assumed to be small compared with the length of other links. A linear second order time invariant differential equation is selected as the reference model for each degree of freedom of the robot arm.

The fact that this control approach is not dependent on a complex mathematical model is one of its major advantages, but stability consideration of the closed loop adaptive system is critical. A stability analysis is difficult, and Dubowsky and DesForges (1979) carried out an investigation of this adaptive system using a linearized model. However, the adaptability of the controller can become questionable if the interaction forces among the various joints are severe.

27

Meng Joo Er et al (2003) stated that the manipulators are multivariable nonlinear coupling systems and frequently subjected to structured and /or unstructured uncertainties even in a well structured setting for industrial use. Structured uncertainties are mainly caused by imprecision in the manipulator link properties, unknown loads, and so on. The unstructured uncertainties are caused by unmodeled dynamics, disturbances and high-frequency models of the dynamics. As result it is difficult to obtain an accurate mathematical model. The control often suffers from heavy computational burden and this hinders their real-time applications. Furthermore, control performance is often degraded due to the existence of modeling errors and external disturbances. Hence, there is a need for model-free adaptive control strategies (Slotine and Li 1991; Astrom and Wittenmark 1995; Lewis et al 1993 and Ge, Lee, and Harris 1998).

2.5.2. Adaptive Control Using an Autoregressive Model

This method is basically different from the reference model method. The problem induced by the setting up of the control rule splits up here in to two steps. First one is on line identification of the robot dynamic parameters. The second one is the synthesis of an optimized control rule for these parameters (Leiniger 1981; Koivo Guo 1983). Koivo and Guo (1983) proposed an adaptive, self tuning controller using an auto regressive model to fit the input- output data from the manipulator. The control algorithm assumes that the interaction forces among the joints are negligible. Bercu and Portier (2002) investigated the stability and the optimality of the adaptive tracking for a wide class of parametric nonlinear autoregressive models, via a new martingale approach. Stylianos et al (2006) used the multi-model partitioning theory for simultaneous order and parameter estimation of multivariate autoregressive models to select the correct model. So the exact model needed for control the manipulator

28

model. In the above two control methods, it is assumed that the interaction forces among the joints are negligible (Lee et al 1985)

2.5.3. Adaptive Perturbation Control

Based on perturbation theory, Lee and Chung (1985) proposed an adaptive control strategy which tracks a desired time- based manipulator trajectory as closely as possible for all times over a wide range of manipulator motion and payloads. Adaptive perturbation control differs from the above adaptive schemes in the sense that it takes all the interactions among the various joint into consideration. The adaptive control is based on linearized perturbation equations about the referenced trajectory. There is a need to drive appropriate linearized perturbation equations suitable for developing the feedback controller which computes perturbation joint torque to reduce position and velocity errors along the nominal trajectory. 2.5.4. Resolved Motion Adaptive Control

The resolved motion adaptive control is performed at the hand level and is based on the linearized perturbation system along a desired time based hand trajectory.

The resolved motion adaptive control differs from the resolved motion acceleration control by minimizing the position / orientation and angular and linear velocities of the manipulator hand along the hand coordinate axes instead of position and orientation errors. A low level microprocessor is used to control joint variable because they still do not have the required speed to compute the controllers for standard frequency. Likewise the number of other types of adaptive control systems exists and it is in still research (Abdallah et al 1991; Berghuis and Nijmeijer 1993; Burg et al 1996;

29

Yazarel et al 2002; Ngo 2005; Keng Peng Tee and Haizhou Li 2009). Because of the instability, the calculations of inverse Jacobian matrix are very difficult. The main drawback of the above control schemes consists in assuming the torque applied directly to the robot link 2.6. A BRIEF SURVEY OF ROBOT ARM CONTROL PROBLEM

Murugasan et al (2004) have studied the parameters governing the arm model of a robot control problem through RKButcher algorithm. The exact solution of the system of equations representing the arm model of a robot have been compared with the corresponding discrete solutions (approximate solutions) at different time intervals using RKButcher algorithm and also the absolute error between the exact and discrete solutions have been determined.

Devarajan Gopal et al (2006) attempted to solve the robot arm control problem by considering the system of equations in terms of second order linear time invariant case and obtained solution by one of the RK algorithm, But still there was error and this simulation was not validated.

Senthilkumar (2009) focused on providing numerical solutions for system of second order robot arm problem using RK-eight stage seventh order limiting formulae. But still there was error and this simulation was not validated.

Ponalagusamy and Senthilkumar (2010) adapted RK-sixth order algorithm to solve robot arm problem. Results and comparison showed that the efficiency of the RK-sixth order algorithm based on the absolute error between the exact and approximate solutions at different time intervals. The corrective measure has been taken to obtain the stability polynomial, the ranges for the real part of h and graphical

30

representation of the stability regions for the case of RK-Butcher algorithm, obtained by Sekar et al (2004), Murugesan et al (2004, 2005). It is found that the error involved in the numerical solution obtained by RK-sixth order algorithm is less in comparison with that obtained by the RK-fifth order and RK-fourth order algorithms respectively. They didnt validate their work.

31

S.No

Publication Year

Authors

Method

Control law

Reference Robot arm model Approx. L-E, DOF

Numerical Values

Order

Tracking

Remarks

Murugasan.K, 1 2004 Sekar.S., Murugash.V. Park.J.Y. DevarajanGopal 2 2006 V. Murugesh K. Murugesan RKButcher Algorithm Arithmetic mean VSC RKButcher Algorithm VSC

Time invariant

2 DOF revolute

Normal

10-6

In correct NA Stability range

Approx. L-E, Time invariant

2 DOF revolute

Normal

10-6

NA

In correct Stability range

2008

S. Senthilkumar

RK-eight stage seventh order

Approx. L-E, VSC Time invariant Approx. L-E, VSC Time invariant

Controversial 2 DOF revolute Normal 10-9 NA Statement by the author with the previous method. 2 DOF revolute 10-9 Sixth order yields little error.

2009

R. Ponalagusamy S. Senthilkumar

Runge-Kutta Sixth order algorithm

Normal

NA

Table 2.1 Survey of robot arm control problem Abbreviations: Normal: Simulated with normalized values, SimReal: Simulated on the model of a real robot, Real: Implemented on a real robot. NA- Not Applicable (Tracking was not analyzed); - error values

32

But the proposed research proved that the measured error less as compared to RK-sixth order algorithm. The table 2.1 shows a brief survey about various authors contribution and their results. The authors used approximate L- E model two DOF robot, with VSC control law to justify their mathematical tool. But practically the proposed tools are not validated and they mathematically viewed the problem. The proposed research uses the same model and control system and proved that the proposed tool measures error exactly and validated by using real time robot. 2.7 HAAR WAVELET SERIES Haar functions have been used from 1910 and introduced by the Hungarian mathematician Alfred Haar. Haar wavelets are the simplest wavelets among various types of wavelets. They are step functions (piecewise constant functions) on the real line that can take only three values. Haar wavelets, like the well-known Walsh function, form an orthogonal and complete set of functions representing discretized functions and piecewise constant functions. A function is said to be piecewise constant if it is locally constant in connected regions. Haar wavelets have been applied extensively for signal processing in communications and physics research, and have proved to be a wonderful mathematical tool. The pioneer work in system analysis via Haar wavelets was done by Chen and Hsiao (1997) who first derived a Haar operational matrix for the integrals of the Haar function vector and paved the way for the Haar analysis of dynamic systems. The fundamental work in state analysis and parameters estimation of bilinear systems via Haar wavelets was done by Hsiao et al (1997) who first derived a Haar product matrix and a coefficient matrix. Hsiao and Wang (1998) proposed a key idea to transform the time-varying function and its product with the state into a Haar product

33

matrix. Since then, all related algorithms can be implemented easily. All severe mathematical conditions can be met perfectly. The main characteristic of this technique is to convert a differential equation into an algebraic one; hence, the solution, the identification, and the optimization procedures are either reduced or simplified accordingly.

Chen and Hsiao (1997) analyzed lumped and distributed parameter dynamic systems and established an operational matrix of integration based on Haar wavelets.

Hsiao (1997) analyzed state analysis of time delayed systems via Haar wavelets. Based upon some useful properties of Haar functions, a special product matrix and a related coefficient matrix are applied to solve the time-delayed systems. The unknown Haar coefficient matrix is solved via the Kronecker product method. The high accuracy and the wide applicability of Haar approach was proved by demonstrated with numerical examples.

Chen and Hsiao (1999) examined to compare the fast capabilities of operational matrices of integration formed by various functions. They found that Haar wavelet operational matrix is the fastest. They formulated a simple and complete procedure for optimizing a dynamic system based on the established matrix. They considered different constraints and various conditions of the time-invariant system optimization problems and solved with the new wavelet approach.

Hsiao and Wang (1999) attempted to solve the time-varying singular nonlinear systems via Haar wavelets. Based upon some useful properties of Haar wavelets, a special product matrix and a related coefficient matrix is applied to the time-varying

34

systems such that the state of time-varying singular nonlinear systems can be solved easily. Hsiao and Wang (2000) made state analysis of time-varying singular bilinear systems via Haar wavelets. Based upon some useful properties of Haar wavelets, a special product matrix and a related coefficient matrix are applied to the time-varying systems such that the state of time-varying singular bilinear systems has been solved easily. The local property of Haar wavelets is advantageous to shorten the calculation process in the task.

A simple and effective algorithm based on Haar wavelet was proposed to the solution of nonlinear stiff problems by Hsiao and Wang (2001). The simulation result showed that the whole computation time can be reduced to one tenth of the well-known RungeKuttaFehlberg approach, while the accuracy is nearly the same.

Hsiao (2004) established a clear procedure for the variational problem solution via Haar wavelet technique. The variational problems are solved by means of the direct method using the Haar wavelets and reduced to the solution of algebraic equations. It has been proved that the approach is more powerful either than Ritzs or Eulers direct methods for solving variational problems.

Hsiao (2004) proposed a simple and effective algorithm called Single Term Haar Wavelet series method based on the Haar wavelets to obtain the solution for linear stiff problems. The simulation result showed that the single-term Haar wavelet method (STHWS) is better than the classical RungeKutta fourth-order method (CRK)

Kalpana and Raja Balachandar (2007) made an analysis for observer design in the generalized state space or singular system of transistor circuits. It can be easily

35

implemented with a digital computer and it is found to be fast, flexible, convenient and computationally attractive.

Bujurke et al (2007) applied Single Term Haar Wavelet Series (STHWS) approach to solve of nonlinear stiff differential equations arising in nonlinear dynamics. Form the results it has been proved that the STHWS turns out to be more effective in its ability to solve systems ranging from mildly to highly stiff equations and is free from stability constraints. Bujurke et al (2009) applied a novel Single-Term Haar Wavelet Series (STHWS) method to solve the Duffing equations and Painleves transcendent (PI and PII). The results, the STHWS method has shows the remarkable features as compared to the other wavelet based techniques. Yuanlu Li (2010) derived Chebyshev wavelet operational matrix of the fractional integration and used to solve a nonlinear fractional differential equations. Yuanlu Li and Weiwei Zhao (2010) derived the Haar wavelet operational matrix of the fractional order integration, and used it to solve the fractional order differential equations including the BagleyTorvik, Ricatti and composite fractional oscillation equations. The results obtained are in good agreement with the existing ones in open literatures. 2.8. CONCLUSIONS

The number of research works has been reviewed about various robot manipulator control methods. They are varying from a simple servomechanism to advanced control schemes such as control with an identification algorithm. The control techniques are discussed in joint motion control, resolved motion control and adaptive control. Each control system has a unique features and also demerits. Apart from this variable structure control have the unique features. The features are

36

The exact knowledge of the manipulators model is not needed Under certain conditions, the system performance is insensitive to bounded external disturbances. These properties are considered for the proposed research and this control system is used in the two DOF, LR model, pick and place robot which is used for validation purpose in this research.

The proposed research uses the Single Term Haar Wavelet series method (STHWS) to solve the dynamic equation of motion by considering nonlinear, decoupled second order differential equation into singular and non singular system time varying and time invariant cases. The computer and real time simulation has been made to obtain desired trajectory. STHWS method is derived from the haar wavelet by taking P1x1= . The STHWS turns out to be more effective in its ability to solve any kind of differential equations and is free from stability constraints.