International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems (2011) 9(5):1005-1012 http://www.springer.

com/12555
DOI 10.1007/s12555-011-0524-5

A Robust Anti-Windup Control Design for Electrically Driven Robots -

Theory and Experiment
Alireza Izadbakhsh, Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat, Mohammad Mehdi Fateh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei

Abstract: A Robust Anti-Windup Control (RAWC) method is proposed for n-Degree-of-Freedom

(DOF) electrically driven robots considering the actuator voltage saturation. The actuator’s saturation
is fairly modeled by a smooth nonlinear function and the control design task is developed to avoid
windup besides being robust against both model uncertainties and external disturbances. As a major
point, the paper also takes into consideration the fact that windup phenomenon can be caused by some
strong disturbances. As a result, being robust to external disturbances promises safer situation against
windup. The proposed controller needs no saturation output feedback and torque’s measurement for
control implementation. The analytical studies as well as the experimental results produced using
MATLAB/SIMULINK External Mode Control on a 2-DOF robot manipulator driven by geared Per-
manent magnet DC motors prove the superiority of the proposed approach.

Keywords: Actuator saturation, anti-windup, conditional integration, modified internal model control,
real-time control.

1. INTRODUCTION robot manipulator through on-line measurements of the

Practical control systems are subject to some upper
and lower bounds that limit the actuator input command.
These constraints may potentially cause “Integrator-
Windup”, especially when the controller includes the
integral term in its structure [1]. A Proportional-
Derivative (PD) controller in the actuated robotic system
experiences this effect when magnitude of the control
signal exceeds an acceptable actuator band. In this
situation, the controller may accumulate errors and
potentially cause unavoidable transient and steady-state
deviations, instability, or even damaging the actuators
[2,3]. To tackle this problem, many control strategies
have been proposed aiming to prevent instability and
nominal performance degradations. For instance, [4]
proposed two saturation-based robust control schemes
for robots and compared their results with a counterpart
published control laws. The proposed approach needs
dynamic model decomposition which is time consuming,
difficult and expensive, especially for higher DOF robot
manipulators. Ref. [2] implements two saturation
avoidance methods for a four DOF serial revolute joints
__________
Manuscript received March 25, 2010; revised November 5,
2010 and April 5, 2011; accepted May 4, 2011. Recommended by
Editorial Board member Youngjin Choi under the direction of
Editor Jae-Bok Song.
Alireza Izadbakhsh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei are with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Garmsar Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Garmsar, Iran (e-mails: Izadbakhsh_alireza@
hotmail.com, rafiei@ieee.org).
Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat and Mohammad Mehdi Fateh are with
the Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahrood University of
Technology, Shahrood, Iran (e-mails: aliakkalat@yahoo.com,
mmfateh@shahroodut.ac.ir).
inertia matrix, coriolis, centrifugal and gravitational
vector for control implementation. A composite
nonlinear feedback control scheme is also addressed in
[5] based on Computed Torque Control (CTC). Recently,
[6] investigated two model-based stabilizing control
schemes, for global trajectory tracking of saturated robot
arms. In addition, [7] proposes a hybrid nonlinear/on-line
adaptive-gravity compensator for robots, by the use of
successive hyperbolic function acting on error signals.
The same control approach, also presented in [8] using
full-state feedback. Moreover, [9] suggests a robust
control scheme for robot manipulators through gravity
knowledge-based control design without considering
actuator dynamic.
A considerable point is that most of these strategies
require extensive computations, as well as a priori
knowledge about complex dynamics of the robots, which
is impossible in practical control situations. Furthermore,
sometimes they are unable to compensate large
uncertainties adequately. In the case of adaptive control
technique, computation requirements for real-time
parameter identification, sensitivity to numerical
accuracy, and the existing noise increase in an undesired
form as the state variables increase. Moreover, they are
unable to handle unstructured uncertainty and external
disturbances, which is a missing link in almost all the
proposed approaches. Therefore, such a proper controller
cannot be easily developed to implement robotic
applications.
To overcome these difficulties, variable structure
control can be employed [10]. However, there are still a
few problems; a conservative design may be obtained
since this scheme should be designed to treat the worst
situation of uncertainties. In addition, undesirable

© ICROS, KIEE and Springer 2011

1006 Alireza Izadbakhsh, Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat, Mohammad Mehdi Fateh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei

chattering can deteriorate system performances. In

several other works, some Anti-Windup (AW) methods
using the saturation output feedback were implemented
[11]. The main discussion is that, all of three customary
approaches for transmitted torque's measurement through
motors shaft i.e., (I) torque measurement by using
reaction force in shaft bearings, (II) the Prony brake
method, and (III) torque measurement through induced
strain in rotating body, suffer from several inherent Fig. 1. AW with back-calculation.
weakness [12]. To overcome these weaknesses, a good
work without saturated signal measurement was
presented [3]. Besides, Ref. [13] has proposed a static
AW controller design for a passive planner robot
manipulator without the gravitational term. However, [3]
requires exact model of the input coefficients matrix,
prior knowledge from nonlinear system dynamic, and an
estimation of the bound of error. As a main weakness
common in aforementioned strategies, almost previous
approaches exclude the actuator dynamics. In the other Fig. 2. Conditional Integration AW method.
word, extension of all the previously demonstrated
control strategies are based on manipulator dynamics and
devoid of using actuator model in the controller structure
and implementation.
In this paper, an AW compensator is developed to
apply in real-time control of robot manipulators using the
voltage control strategy. The proposed approach is free
of model and provide a flexible design framework to deal
with robustness and windup rejection issues for robotic
systems. Comparisons with three common AW Fig. 3. Modified internal model control (MIMC).
approaches are presented through experimental results.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes
three well-known AW approaches using the voltage 2.2. Conditional integration
control strategy. Section 3 discusses the problem In this approach, the compensator C switches the input
formulation. Section 4 presents the proposed RAWC. of the integral term to one of the two states depending on
Also, extensive experimental results on a 2 DOF robot is the difference between the saturated and unsaturated
presented and discussed in Section 5. Finally, the last control signal as shown in Fig. 2.
section covers the concluding remarks.
2.3. Modified internal model control (MIMC)
This is a very simple approach to reduce the effects of
2. AN EXTENSION OF THREE FAMOUS
integral windup. A feedback signal is created from the
ANTI-WINDUP STRATEGIES
saturation element output, as shown in Fig. 3. This signal
So far, the joint torques have been the favored control then must be applied for both plant model and actual
commands for robot control. However, the fact is that plant. It would force the plant model to behave as same
actuators drive the manipulators and the torque-based as the actual plant when the inputs reach constraints,
control command cannot be applied directly for the otherwise the model mismatch can lead to instability.
actuators that are controlled by voltages. Therefore, Any interested reader might refer to [15] for further
voltage control strategy exhibits superior to torque information. Please note that, the saturation block in Figs.
control strategy in the electrically driven robot 1 to 3 represent either the actual saturation in the actuator,
manipulators [19]. This leads to apply three famous AW if the actuator input is measurable, or alternatively a
approaches to control electrically driven robots using the model of it, if a measurement of the actuator input is not
voltage control strategy as follows: available.

2.1. Tracking anti-windup design 3. MODELING CONSIDERING SATURATION

The standard tracking AW structure commonly used in
the literature has been shown in Fig. 1, with the control
parameters k' denoting the proportional gain, the integral
time constant Ti, the derivative time constant Td, and a
filter factor N for derivative part which is usually set
between 7 and 15 [14]. In addition, Tt represents tracking
time constant.
Consider an n-link manipulator driven by geared
Permanent magnet DC motors with voltages being inputs
to amplifiers. As in [16], the dynamics are described by
M (q)q

+ Vm (q, q
)q
+ H (q, q
) = αV , (1)
where the parameters are defined exactly similar to [16].
 A Robust Anti-Windup Control Design for Electrically Driven Robots - Theory and Experiment 1007

For practical situations, the range of motor input voltage quency gain vectors, and r is a new control input, respec-
V is constrained to some certain voltages, called motor tively. On applying (6) to (9), yields
saturation limits. This occurs usually between output of
the motor controller and the PWM module. x
= ( A − BK ) x + BK 0 r + ℑ. (10)
In order to design our proposed algorithm, we For the development of robust controller, suppose that
assumed that the relation between the actual actuator’s
input (V) and control signal produced by the AW x
d = ( A − BK ) xd + BK 0 rd , (11)
compensator (u) is given by yd = Cxd (12)
V = β tanh(u / β ), (2) represent the desired performance of the closed-loop
where β > 0 is the maximum allowable voltage deter- system we wish for the manipulator. In last equation, the
mined by the actuator. Now, let us denote the actuator’s elements rd and yd are the reference trajectory and de-
non-implemented control signal by sired output in the joint space respectively. It is important
to note that, the value of the K controller is setup by trial-
φ (u ) = β tanh(u / β ) − u. (3) and-play based on transient and static performance from
simulation results for (11). Therefore, this part of the
Considering (1) to (3), we define a second-order non- design procedure is quite straightforward and is carrying
linear differential equation of integrated actuator and out independently. Now, for the problem of tracking the
manipulator, here called “available model” as desired trajectory, we define the following variables
q

= u +℘( q, q
, q

, φ (u ) ) , (4) e = x − xd , ξ = y − yd , ℵ = r − rd . (13)
where Considering (13) and combining with (7), (10)-(12),
the error dynamics may then be written as
℘( q, q
, q

, φ (u ) ) = α −1
[(α I − M (q))q

− Vm (q, q
)q

(5)
− H (q, q
) + αφ (u )] . e
= ( A − BK )e + BK 0ℵ + ℑ, (14)
ξ = Ce. (15)
Such that α is a non-singular diagonal matrix. The moti-
vation behind our definition is that, the effects of para- The control problem is now reduced to designing an
meter variations, external disturbances, and the common auxiliary control input ℵ to provide asymptotic stability
nonlinearities arise from using actuator in practical con- of the controlled robotic system, under the assumption of
trol applications can be lumped in a single term and con- unknown information of the actuator and robot dynamic
sidered as a perturbation denoted by ℘. Therefore, the (i.e., we have not any knowledge of parameters plate or
data sheet, which supply usually by the manufacturer).
control problem summarizes into the problem of stabiliz-
For this purpose, the following quantities are defined
ing the available model based on Internal Model Prin-
ciple. p
Ξ = e ( ) − ∑ b j e( ) ,
p p− j
(16)
4. DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL STRUCTURE j =1
p
Φ = ℵ( ) − ∑ b jℵ( ) ,
p p− j
In this section, we consider actuator saturation (17)
compensation to achieve optimal tracking and j =1

disturbance rejection for the motion control of robots as where bj’s are zero or any positive real scalars designed
an extended form of [16]. For this purpose, suppose (4) by engineer designer. The core idea of these defenitions
is rewritten in the following state and output equation is that perturbation can be approximated by a pth order
form as ordinary differential equation (ODE) as (18) [16,17].
x
= Ax + Bu + ℑ, (6) p
ℑ( ) = ∑ b j ℑ( ) .
p p− j
y = Cx, (7) (18)
j =1
T 2n
where x = [q q
] ∈ ℜ is the state of the system,
y ∈ ℜn is measured output and only consists of the joint By taking time derivative of both sides of (14) we
arrive at
positions and finally
Ξ
= ( A − BK ) Ξ + BK 0 Φ. (19)
0 I  0   0 
A=  , B =   , C =[I 0], ℑ=   . (8)
0 0  I 



℘(q, q, q, φ )  By the last result, the design procedure is now to
search for a controller Ф as
Given the plant (6), (7), in the first stage we imple-
ment a feedback control scheme of the following form p
Φ = −∑ µ jξ (
p− j )
− µ0 Ξ (20)
u = − Kx + K 0 r , (9) j =1

where K and K0 are positive state-feedback and zero fre- such that the closed-loop system, defined by
1008 Alireza Izadbakhsh, Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat, Mohammad Mehdi Fateh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei
p such that
Ξ
= ( A − BK − BK 0 µ0 ) Ξ − BK 0C (∑ µ j e( ) )
p− j
j =1
has certain desired properties. Once the auxiliary input
ℵ is generated by (20), we should improve the r value in
(9) to account for effects of perturbations
r = rd +ℵ.
It is concluded immediately from the equation above
that in order for the robot to have an accurate motion in
the presence of unwanted uncertainties and actuator non-
linearity, the control input must be changed to (22). Im-
proving of the control input, not only provides the de-
signer with another DOF to control the transient response,
but also it would cause the control system to avoid satu-
ration for a long time. This can be gained by changing
the auxiliary control input ℵ injected to the inner con-
trol loop. As can be seen from (15), ξ is a function of
tracking error e, therefore ℵ depends on the tracking
error only and it ensures that tracking error e(ξ) ap-
proaches zero asymptotically as time increases.
Remark: As can be seen, (18) is a p order ODE. It can
be easily show that, the solution of this equation is a con-
tinuous function as:
p
ℑ(t ) = ∑ ci eλi t Cos (ωi t + θi ) .
i =1
It is interesting to investigate the capability of the last
assumption, (18), from a function approximation capabil-
ity point of view. Herein, we will prove that (23) have
the universal approximation capability. In the following,
we suppose that the input universe of discourse T is a
convex set in ℜn . First, we need the following useful
Theorem.
Stone-Weierstrass Theorem [18]: Let Z be a set of
real continuous functions on a convex set T. If
1) Z is an algebra, that is, the set Z is closed under
multiplication, addition, and scalar multiplication,
2) Z separates points of T, i.e.,
∀t1 , t2 ∈ T , t1 ≠ t2 , ∃ ℑ(t ) ∈ Z : ℑ(t1 ) ≠ ℑ(t2 ),
3) Z vanishes at no point of T, that is,
∀t ∈ T , ∃ ℑ(t ) ∈ Z : ℑ(t ) ≠ 0
then for any real continuous function ℑ(t ) on T and
arbitrary ε > 0, there exists a function f (t) in Z such that
Sup f (t ) − ℑ(t ) < ε .
t∈T
Proposition: Let ℑ(t ) be a continuous real function
on a convex set T in ℜn , then for each arbitrary ε > 0,
there exists a function in the form of
p
∑ ci eλit Cos (ωi t + θi )
i =1
(21)
p
Sup
t∈T
∑ ci eλ t Cos (ωi t + θi ) − ℑ(t ) < ε .
i (28)
i =1
Proof of Proposition: Let Z to be a set of continuous
function on T Convex set in the form of (23) and suppose
(22) ℑ1 (t ), ℑ2 (t ) are given as
p
ℑ1 (t ) = ∑ ci eλ t Cos (ωi t + θi ) ,
i
i =1
p
(29)
λ jt
(
ℑ2 (t ) = ∑ c j e Cos ω j t + θ j . )
j =1
Using some mathematical computation, it can easily
be shown, for any arbitrary σ ∈ ℜ; ℑ1 (t ) + ℑ2 (t ),
ℑ1 (t ).ℑ2 (t ) and σ .ℑ(t ) are belong to Z and hence Z is
an algebra. Therefore, the first condition, (24), is true for
Z. We show that Z separates points on the T set. To do
this, we choose the parameters of the ℑ(t ) in the form
of (23) as follow
c1 = 1, λ1 = − 1, ω1 =0, θ1 =0. (30)
Since t1 ≠ t2 , then e−t1 ≠ e−t2 and therefore the sec-
ond condition is also verified. To show that Z vanishes at
(23) no point of T, we simply observe that any system in the
form of (23) with ωi =0, θi =0 and ci > 0 has the prop-
erty that
∀t ∈ T, ℑ(t ) > 0. (31)
Hence, Z vanishes at no point of T. Thus the three
aforementioned conditions are satisfied. Therefore the
result follows by Stone-Weierstrass Theorem.
5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The experimental setup using a 2-link elbow robot
manipulator is shown in Fig. 4. The first joint is driven
by geared permanent magnet DC motor characterized by
Barber-Colman Company operating within ±12 volt
(24) input and second joint is driven by a vormo geared DC
motor under the same operating conditions. The first
motor drives a shaft that carries a potentiometer, a tacho-
(25) generator and a link, which is installed between the
motor and the potentiometer and the second motor is
only equipped by a potentiometer. The measured input-
output data are transferred to a computer (Pentium II 366
(26)
(27) Fig. 4. The experimental setup of the robotic control
system.
 A Robust Anti-Windup Control Design for Electrically Driven Robots - Theory and Experiment 1009

2
MHz) by a data acquisition card (ADVANTECH PCL- Without AW
1.8 Tracking AW
818L with up to 100 kHz sampling rate, 12 bit high Conditional Integration
speed A/D converter with a conversion rate of max 1.6 MIMC
RAWC
40KHz). The data acquisition card controls the practical 1.4
robot through user-defined programs in MATLAB/ )d 1.2
a
SIMULINK environment. A low pass filter with a cut off (rn
itoi 1
frequency of 5 Hz is also used for noise cancellation of so
p 0.8
the potentiometer. Now, to illustrate the windup
0.6
phenomenon, the performance of the proposed controller
is compared with three famous model-free AW methods 0.4

presented in Section 2. The controller parameters for 0.2

RAWC scheme were designed as 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)
100 0 20 0  (a) Joint 1.
K = , (32) 2
 0 5 0 4.47  Without AW
1.8 Tracking AW
Conditional Integration
where p=1 and b1=0. Also, the plant model and controller 1.6 MIMC
parameters Q1 and Q2 are selected as RAWC
1.4

) 1.2
 1 1  d
ra
p
= diag  2 , 2 ,
(
n
io
ti
1
 S + 10.95S + 30 S + 4.47 S + 5  so
p 0.8
Q1 = diag (400, 400), (33) 0.6

 29.05S + 370 35.53S + 395  0.4

Q2 = diag  2 , 2 
 S + 10.95S + 30 S + 4.47 S + 5  0.2

0
for MIMC. Moreover, using Ziegler-Nichols method and 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)
manual tuning, we derived the controller gains for PID- (b) Joint 2.
controller as Td=diag(0.1,0.2), N=10, Ti=diag(1.11,1.25),
Tt=diag(5,5) and k'=diag(36,36). We indicate that the Fig. 5. Step responses of the manipulator system.
three mentioned famous AW control approaches cannot 15
Without AW
keep robustness against large external disturbances. To Tracking AW
that, when the system includes actuator saturation, the 10 Conditional Integration
MIMC
step response and control signal obtained as shown in RAWC
Figs. 5 to 6. These inferior responses are justifiable by 5
control signal saturation and accumulated error at the )lt
vo(
back of integral term. This poor response of PID con- eg 0
alt
trolled system that is large overshoot and settling time o
V
about 5 second has been compensated by using RAWC, -5

as shown in Fig. 5.
To explore RAWC ability in both set point and track- -10

ing control, several cases with external disturbance are

-15
studies and the results are compared. Henceforth, all of 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)
control parameters are the same as before, except µ and
(a) Joint 1.
15
100 0 20 0  Without AW
K =  (34) Tracking AW
 0 150 0 10  10 Conditional Integration
MIMC
RAWC
for the second joint. This change is fully rational, since 5
the inner loop controller is design to set poles of the t)l
ov
available model in desired places, depending on wanted (
gea 0
trajectory, as remarked in Section 4. In addition, the se- tl
o
V
lected parameter for MIMC method improved as -5

 1 1  -10
p
= diag  2 , 2 ,
 S + 10.95S + 30 S + 3S + 25 
-15
Q1 = diag (400, 400), (35) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)
 29.05S + 370 37 S + 375  (b) Joint 2.
Q2 = diag  2 , .
 S + 10.95S + 30 S 2 + 3S + 25  Fig. 6. The joint-space control voltage histories.
1010 Alireza Izadbakhsh, Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat, Mohammad Mehdi Fateh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei

1.5
Without AW For this purpose, two types of disturbances are
Tracking AW imposed to the second joint of robotic system. These
Conditional Integration
MIMC disturbances can be representative of additive
RAWC
uncertainties as well as usual output disturbances before
1
)d the saturation block.
ar
(n 1.5 Case 1 (Constant External Disturbance): The first
ioti
so
p
test includes a constant disturbance injected to the output
1
0.5 of inner-loop linear compensator u, as shown in Figs. 1
0.5 to 3. The performance of the four schemes are tested by
real-time experiments for set point control of joint 1 and
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 tracking a sinusoidal path by second joint given by
0
0 5 10
time(s)
15 20 25
xd (t ) = 1.256 − 0.628Cos (0.5t ) − 0.314Sin(t ). (36)
(a) Joint 1.
3 Figs. 7 and 8 show the time evolution for set-point and
tracking control, and tracking error of the joints,
2.5 respectively. Due to large number of Figures, the
actuator voltages has been omitted here, but they are of
2 acceptable behaviour. As can be seen, the tracking error
)d
a
(rn for RAWC is limited to about 0.015 rad for first joint and
o 1.5
itis 0.04 rad for second joint which is acceptable considering
o
p
the mechanical resolution limitations. These figures
1
Without AW
illustrate that all of these control methodologies provides
0.5
Tracking AW good responses in presence of constant external
Conditional Integration
MIMC disturbances except MIMC.
0
RAWC Case 2 (Large External Disturbance): To further test
0 5 10 15 20 25
time(s) the robustness of the proposed approach, a large external
(b) Joint 2. disturbances (in comparison to control signal), imposed
Fig. 7. The joint-space trajectory tracking in presence of to the second joint of robotic system. such a strong dis-
constant External disturbance. turbance is quite likely to move the actuator to the satu-

1 1
Without AW Without AW
0.8 Tracking AW 0.8 Tracking AW
Conditional Integration Conditional Integration
0.6 MIMC 0.6 MIMC
RAWC RAWC
)
0.4 )
0.4
d d
a a
r r
(
r
o
0.2 (
r
o
0.2
r r
r r
e e
n
o
i
0 n
o
i
0
t t
i
s 1 i
s
o
p -0.2 o
p -0.2
t
n
i
0.5 t
n
i
o
j
-0.4
o
j
-0.4
0
-0.6 -0.5 -0.6

-0.8 -1 -0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5
-1 -1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time(s) time(s)
(a) Joint 1. (a) Joint 1.
0.4 1.5

1
0.2

0.5
0
) )
d d

0
a a
r r
( (
r r
o
r
r -0.2 o
r
r
e e

n
o
i
n
o
i
-0.5
t t
i i
s
o
-0.4 s
o
p
t
p
t -1
n n
i i
o o
j j
-0.6
Without AW -1.5 Without AW
Tracking AW Tracking AW
-0.8 Conditional Integration -2 Conditional Integration
MIMC MIMC
RAWC RAWC
-1 -2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time(s) time(s)
(b) Joint 2. (b) Joint 2.
Fig. 8. The joint-space trajectory tracking errors in Fig. 9. The joint-space trajectory tracking errors in
presence of constant External disturbance. presence of large External disturbance.
 A Robust Anti-Windup Control Design for Electrically Driven Robots - Theory and Experiment 1011

1.5
Without AW and avoids windup. Some experimental results were
Tracking AW shown to prove the superiority of the proposed approach.
Conditional Integration
MIMC The approach presented in this paper can easily be
RAWC extended to any robot of higher DOF.
1
)d
a
r(
n
REFERENCES
o
iit
so
[1] V. Kapila and K. M. Grigoriadis, Actuator Satura-
p tion Control, Marcel Dekker, 2002.
0.5
[2] Y. Ting, S. Tosunoglu, R. Freeman, and D. Tesar,
“Saturation avoidance methods for serial robots op-
erating under a failure,” Journal of Robotic Systems,
vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 667-678, 1999.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 [3] W. Gao and R-R. Selmic, “Neural network control
time(s)
(a) Joint 1. of a class of nonlinear systems with actuator satura-
3 tion,” IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 17,
no.1, pp. 147-156, 2006.
2.5 [4] G. Liu and A. A. Goldenberg, “Comparative study
of robust saturation-based control of robot manipu-
2 lators: analysis and experiments,” International
)d Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 15, no. 5, pp.
ra
(n
tio
is
1.5 473-491, 1996.
o
p [5] W. Peng, Z. Lin, and J. Su, “Computed torque con-
1 trol-based composite nonlinear feedback controller
Without AW for robot manipulators with bounded torques,” IET
Tracking AW
0.5
Conditional Integration Control Theory and Applications, vol. 3, no. 6, pp.
MIMC 701-711, 2009.
RAWC
0 [6] E. A. Ruiz, A. Zavala-Rio, V. Santibanez, and F.
0 5 10 15 20 25
time(s) Reyes, “Global trajectory tracking through static
(b) Joint 2. feedback for robot manipulators with bounded in-
Fig. 10. The joint-space trajectory tracking in presence puts,” IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology,
of large External disturbance. vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 934-944, 2009.
[7] J.-Z. Xiao, H.-R. Wang, W. Zhang, and H.-R. Wei,
ration zone. The technical specifications such as tracking “Adaptive robotic control based on a filter function
error and trajectory tracking ability are illustrated in Figs. under the saturation of actuators,” Proc. of Interna-
9 to 10. Tracking error presented in Fig. 9 looks small, tional Conference on Machine Learning and Cy-
lower than %3.5, which is satisfactory for many practical bernetics, pp. 283-287, 2006.
applications. From Fig. 10, it can be seen that the joint [8] E. Zergeroglu, W. Dixon, A. Behal, and D. Dawson,
positions for RAWC reaches the reference signals in a “Adaptive set-point control of robotic manipulators
short time while having good performance in steady state. with amplitude-limited control inputs,” Robotica,
Experimental results show that, there is virtually a little vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 171-181, 2000.
change in the responses for the RAWC compared with [9] A. Z-Río and V. Santibanez, “Simple extensions of
other anti-windup method. Thus, the proposed robust the PD-with-gravity-compensation control law for
anti-windup control method demonstrates high capability robot manipulators with bounded inputs,” IEEE
of overcoming not only the model uncertainties, but also Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 14, no.
the external disturbances in presence of saturation nonli- 5, pp. 958-965, 2006.
nearity. [10] Y.-S. Lu, “Integral variable-structure control with
variable-structure sliding dynamics for anti-reset
6. CONCLUSIONS windup,” Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical En-
gineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control
Many Anti-Windup control techniques may improve Engineering, pp. 209-216, 2008.
performance of the control system subject to some [11] F. Morabito, A. R. Tee1, and L. Zaccarian, “Nonli-
actuator saturation. However, such a design near anti windup applied to Euler-Lagrange sys-
modifications does not guarantee asymptotic closed-loop tems,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation,
stability in presence of external disturbance. External vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 526-537, 2004.
disturbance besides causing tracking error can itself [12] A. S. Morris, Measurement and Instrumentation
aggravate the actuator saturation problem. The use of a Principles, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
robust control approach for trajectory tracking of robot [13] M. Kanamori, “Static anti-windup controller design
considering the actuator saturation model was developed for planar 2DOF robot manipulators with actuator
in this paper. The proposed approach guarantees stability, saturation,” Proc. of IEEE International Confe-
ensures tracking and disturbance rejection capabilities, rence on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3314-3319,
1012 Alireza Izadbakhsh, Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat, Mohammad Mehdi Fateh, and Mohammad Reza Rafiei
2009.
[14] Y. Peng, D. Vrancic, and R. Hanus, “Anti-windup,
bumpless, and conditioned transfer techniques for
PID controllers,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 48-57, 1996.
[15] M. Morari and E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Control,
Prentice Hall, 1989.
[16] A. Izadbakhsh and S. M. R Rafiei, “Endpoint per-
fect tracking control of robots - a robust non inver-
sion-based approach,” International Journal of
Control, Automation, and Systems, vol. 7, no. 6, pp.
888-898, 2009.
[17] G. F. Franklin and A. Emami-Naeini, “A foundation
of the multivariable information servomechanism
problem,” Int. Rep, Stanford University, Informa-
tion Science Lab, 1983.
[18] W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis,
McGraw-Hill, 1976.
[19] M. M. Fateh, “On the voltage based control of ro-
bot manipulators,” International Journal of Control,
Automation, and Systems, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 702-712,
2008.
Alireza Izadbakhsh received his B.Sc.
degree in Electrical Engineering from
Islamic Azad University, Garmsar Branch
and his M.Sc. degree in Control Engi-
neering from Shahrood University of
Technology, Shahrood, Iran. His fields of
interests are robotics, control and real-
time systems.
Ali Akbarzadeh Kalat was born in
Mashhad, Iran in 1969. He received his
B.Sc. degree from Iran University of
Science and Technology in 1992. He
graduated in Control Engineering in
M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Ferdowsi Univer-
sity and Tarbiat Modares University in
1998 and 2007 respectively. His fields of
interest include Neural, Fuzzy and Adap-
tive control systems.
Mohammad Mehdi Fateh studied robot-
ics at the Southampton University and
obtained his Ph.D. degree on end effector
design and control in 2000. He is a staff
member of the Department of Electrical
and Robotic Engineering at Shahrood
University of Technology. His current
research is on robot control.
Mohammad-Reza Rafiei received his
B.Sc. degree with honor from the Sistan
and Baluchistan University, Zahedan,
Iran, in 1991, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees from the Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, in 1995 and
2000, respectively all in Electrical
Engineering. His research interests are
power electronics, control systems, and
computer science.