Advertisement

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 198–210 | Cite as

A systematic review of current and emergent manipulator control approaches

  • Syed Ali Ajwad
  • Jamshed IqbalEmail author
  • Muhammad Imran Ullah
  • Adeel Mehmood
Review Article

Abstract

Pressing demands of productivity and accuracy in today’s robotic applications have highlighted an urge to replace classical control strategies with their modern control counterparts. This recent trend is further justified by the fact that the robotic manipulators have complex nonlinear dynamic structure with uncertain parameters. Highlighting the authors’ research achievements in the domain of manipulator design and control, this paper presents a systematic and comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art control techniques that find enormous potential in controlling manipulators to execute cuttingedge applications. In particular, three kinds of strategies, i.e., intelligent proportional-integral-derivative (PID) scheme, robust control and adaptation based approaches, are reviewed. Future trend in the subject area is commented. Open-source simulators to facilitate controller design are also tabulated. With a comprehensive list of references, it is anticipated that the review will act as a firsthand reference for researchers, engineers and industrialinterns to realize the control laws for multi-degree of freedom (DOF) manipulators.

Keywords

robot control robust and nonlinear control adaptive control intelligent control industrial manipulators robotic arm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Khan H, Iqbal J, Baizid K, et al. Longitudinal and lateral slip control of autonomous wheeled mobile robot for trajectory tracking. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 2015, 16(2): 166–172Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spong M W, Vidyasagar M. Robot Dynamics and Control. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N G, Fiorilla A E, et al. A portable rehabilitation device for the hand. In: 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Buenos Aires: IEEE, 2010, 3694–3697Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N, Caldwell D. Design optimization of a hand exoskeleton rehabilitation device. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Understanding the Human Hand for Advancing Robotic Manipulation, Robotics Science and Systems (RSS). Seattle, 2009, 44–45Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N G, Caldwell D G. A human hand compatible optimised exoskeleton system. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). Tianjin: IEEE, 2010, 685–690Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N G, Caldwell D G. A multi-DOF robotic exoskeleton interface for hand motion assistance. In: 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Boston: IEEE, 2011, 1575–1578Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N, Fiorilla A E, et al. Design requirements of a hand exoskeleton robotic device. In: 14th IASTED International Conference on Robotics and Applications (RA). Massachusetts, 2009, 44–51Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan A A, un Nabi S R, Iqbal J. Surface estimation of a pedestrian walk for outdoor use of power wheelchair based robot. Life Science Journal, 2013, 10(3): 1697–1704Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N, Caldwell D. Design of a wearable directdriven optimized hand exoskeleton device. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI). Gosier: IARIA, 2011, 142–146Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Azeem M M, Iqbal J, Toivanen P, et al. Emotions in robots. In: Chowdhry B S, Shaikh F K, Akbar Hussain D M, et al., eds. Emerging Trends and Applications in Information Communication Technologies. Berlin: Springer, 2012, 144–153Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naveed K, Iqbal J, ur Rahman H. Brain controlled human robot interface. In: 2012 International Conference on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (ICRAI). Rawalpindi: IEEE, 2012, 55–60Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iqbal J, Pasha S M, Baizid K, et al. Computer vision inspired realtime autonomous moving target detection, tracking and locking. Life Science Journal, 2013, 10(4): 3338–3345zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iqbal J, Pasha M, Riaz-un-Nabi, et al. Real-time target detection and tracking: A comparative in-depth review of strategies. Life Science Journal, 2013, 10(3): 804–813Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iqbal J, Heikkila S, Halme A. Tether tracking and control of ROSA robotic rover. In: 10th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV). Hanoi: IEEE, 2008, 689–693Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iqbal J, Saad MR, Tahir A M, et al. State estimation technique for a planetary robotic rover. Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, 2014, 73: 58–68Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iqbal J, Tahir A, Islam R U, et al. Robotics for nuclear power plants—Challenges and future perspectives. In: 2012 2nd International Conference on Applied Robotics for the Power Industry (CARPI). Zurich: IEEE, 2012, 151–156Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baizid K, Chellali R, Yousnadj A, et al. Modelling of robotized site and simulation of robot’s optimum placement and orientation zone. In: 21st IASTED International Conference on Modelling and Simulation (MS). Canada, 2010, 9–16Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meddahi A, Baizid K, Yousnadj A, et al. API based graphical simulation of robotized sites. In: IASTED International Conference on Robotics and Applications. Cambridge, 2009, 485–492Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groover M P, Weiss M, Nagel R N, et al. Industrial Robotics: Technology, Programming and Applications. McGraw-Hill Education, 2008Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fu K S, Gonzalez R C, Lee C S G. Robotics: Control Sensing Vision and Intelligence. McGraw-Hill Education, 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bamdad M. Analytical dynamic solution of a flexible cablesuspended manipulator. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 8(4): 350–359Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baizid K, Yousnadj A, Meddahi A, et al. Time scheduling and optimization of industrial robotized tasks based on genetic algorithms. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2015, 34: 140–150Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Asfahl C. Robots and Manufacturing Automation. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Visioli A. Research trends for PID controllers. Acta Polytechnica, 2012, 52(5): 144–150Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blevins T. PID advances in industrial control. In: Preprints IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control. Brescia, 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McMillan G K. Industrial applications of PID control. In: Vilanova R, Visioli A, eds. PID Control in the Third Millennium. London: Springer, 2012, 415–461Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brogårdh T. Present and future robot control development—An industrial perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 2007, 31(1): 69–79Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brogårdh T. Robot control overview: An industrial perspective. Modeling, Identification and Control, 2009, 30(3): 167–180Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khan M F, Iqbal J, Islam R U. Control strategies for robotic manipulators. In: 2012 International Conference on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (ICRAI). Rawalpindi: IEEE, 2012, 26–33Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Craig J J. Introduction to Robotics. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA, 2006Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liang C, Ceccarelli M. Feasible workspace regions for general two-revolute manipulator. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2011, 6(4): 397–408Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Islam R U, Iqbal J, Manzoor S, et al. An autonomous image—Guided robotic system simulating industrial applications. In: 2012 7th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SoSE). Genoa: IEEE, 2012, 344–349Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manzoor S, Islam R U, Khalid A, et al. An open-source multi-DOF articulated robotic educational platform for autonomous object manipulation. Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing, 2014, 30(3): 351–362Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Álvarez Chavarría J S, Jiménez Builes J A, Ramírez Patiño J F. Design cycle of a robot for learning and the development of creativity in engineering. DYNA, 2011, 78(170): 51–58Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ajwad S A, Ullah M I, Islam R U, et al. Modeling robotic arms–A review and derivation of screw theory based kinematics. In: International Conference on Engineering & Emerging Technologies. Lahore, 2014, 66–69Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yime-Rodríguez E, Peña-Cortés C A, Rojas-Contreras W M. The dynamic model of a four control moment gyroscope system. DYNA, 2014, 81(185): 41–47Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Márton L, Lantos B. Control of robotic systems with unknown friction and payload. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2011, 19(6): 1534–1539Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iqbal J, Islam R U, Khan H. Modeling and analysis of a 6 DOF robotic arm manipulator. Canadian Journal on Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 2012, 3(6): 300–306Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Iqbal J, un Nabi S R, Khan A A, et al. A novel track-drive mobile robotic framework for conducting projects on robotics and control systems. Journal of Life Science, 2013, 10(3): 130–137Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ajwad S A, Iqbal U, Iqbal J. Hardware realization and control of multi-degree of freedom articulated robotic arm. In: Emerging Trends and Applications in Information Communication Technologies, Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS). Berlin: Springer 2015 (in press)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fei Y, Wu Q. Tracking control of robot manipulators via output feedback linearization. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China, 2006, 1(3): 329–335Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nagaraj B, Murugananth N. A comparative study of PID controller tuning using GA, EP, PSO and ACO. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communication Control and Computing Technologies (ICCCCT). Ramanathapuram: IEEE, 2010, 305–313Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tan W, Liu J, Chen T, et al. Comparison of some well-known PID tuning formulas. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2006, 30 (9): 1416–1423Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Foley M W, Julien R H, Copeland B R. A comparison of PID controller tuning methods. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2005, 83(4): 712–722Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N G, Caldwell D G. Human hand compatible underactuated exoskeleton robotic system. Electronics Letters, 2014, 50(7): 494–496Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Iqbal J, Khan H, Tsagarakis N G, et al. A novel exoskeleton robotic system for hand rehabilitation—Conceptualization to prototyping. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 2014, 34(2): 79–89Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Iqbal U, Samad A, Nissa Z, et al. Embedded control system for AUTAREP—A novel AUTonomous articulated robotic educational platform. Technical Gazette, 2014, 21(6): 1255–1261Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ajwad S, Ullah M, Baizid K, et al. A comprehensive state-of-theart on control of industrial articulated robots. Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association, 2014, 20(4): 499–521Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ullah M I, Ajwad S A, Islam R U, et al. Modeling and computed torque control of a 6 degree of freedom robotic arm. In: 2014 International Conference on Robotics & Emerging Allied Technologies in Engineering (iCREATE). Islamabad: IEEE, 2014, 133–138Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Piltan F, Sulaiman N, Jalali A, et al. Design of model free adaptive fuzzy computed torque controller: Applied to nonlinear second order system. International Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2011, 2(4): 232–244Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sharkawy A B, Othman M M, Khalil A M A. A robust fuzzy tracking control scheme for robotic manipulators with experimental verification. Intelligent Control and Automation, 2011, 2 (2): 100–111Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen Y, Ma G, Lin S, et al. Adaptive fuzzy computed-torque control for robot manipulator with uncertain dynamics. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2012, 9: 237–245Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leines M T, Yang J S. LQR control of an under actuated planar biped robot. In: 2011 6th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA). Beijing: IEEE, 2011, 1684–1689Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simmons G, Demiris Y. Optimal robot arm control using the minimum variance model. Journal of Robotic Systems, 2005, 22 (11): 677–690zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Islam R U, Iqbal J, Khan Q. Design and comparison of two control strategies for multi-DOF articulated robotic arm manipulator. Control Engineering and Applied Informatics, 2014, 16(2): 28–39Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wai R J, Muthusamy R. Fuzzy-neural-network inherited slidingmode control for robot manipulator including actuator dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2013, 24(2): 274–287Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nabaee A R, Piltan F, Ebrahimi M M, et al. Design intelligent robust partly linear term SMC for robot manipulator systems. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2014, 6: 58–71Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hacioglu Y, Arslan Y Z, Yagiz N. MIMO fuzzy sliding mode controlled dual arm robot in load transportation. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2011, 348(8): 1886–1902MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Corradini M L, Fossi V, Giantomassi A, et al. Discrete time sliding mode control of robotic manipulators: Development and experimental validation. Control Engineering Practice, 2012, 20(8): 816–822Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Laghrouche S, Mehmood A, Bagdouri M E. Study of the nonlinear control techniques for single acting VGT pneumatic actuator. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 2012, 60(3/4): 264–285Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Camacho E F, Alba C B. Model Predictive Control. Springer, 2013Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang L. Model Predictive Control System Design and Implementation Using MATLAB®. London: Springer, 2009Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Henmi T, Deng M, Inoue A. Adaptive control of a two-link planar manipulator using nonlinear model predictive control. In: 2010 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA). Xi’an: IEEE, 2010, 1868–1873Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mazdarani H, Farrokhi M. Adaptive neuro-predictive control of robot manipulators in work space. In: 2012 17th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR). Miedzyzdrojie: IEEE, 2012, 349–354Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rojas–Moreno A, Valdivia–Mallqui R. Embedded position control system of a manipulator using a robust nonlinear predictive control. In: 2013 16th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). Montevideo: IEEE, 2013, 1–6Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Copot C, Lazar C, Burlacu A. Predictive control of nonlinear visual servoing systems using image moments. IET Control Theory & Applications, 2012, 6(10): 1486–1496Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang L, Chai S, Rogers E, et al. Multivariable repetitive-predictive controllers using frequency decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2012, 20(6): 1597–1604Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gu D W. Robust Control Design with MATLAB®. London: Springer, 2005Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Montano O E, Orlov Y. Discontinuous H. 1-control of mechanical manipulators with frictional joints. In: 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control (CCE). Mexico City: IEEE, 2012, 1–6Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chen C. Robust self-organizing neural-fuzzy control with uncertainty observer for MIMO nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2011, 19(4): 694–706Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Siqueira A A G, Terra M H. Mixed model-based/neural network H1 impedance control of constrained manipulators. In: IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA). Christchurch: IEEE, 2009, 1901–1906Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yang Z, Fukushima Y, Qin P. Decentralized adaptive robust control of robot manipulators using disturbance observers. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2012, 20(5): 1357–1365Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kim Y, Seok J, Noh I, et al. An adaptive disturbance observer for a two-link robot manipulator. In: International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS). Seoul: IEEE, 2008, 141–145Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    He Z, Xie W. Improved disturbance observer based control structure. In: Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC). Guilin: IEEE, 2009, 1015–1020Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Parsa M, Farrokhi M. Robust nonlinear model predictive trajectory free control of biped robots based on nonlinear disturbance observer. In: 2010 18th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE). Isfahan: IEEE, 2010, 617–622Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mohammadi A, Tavakoli M, Marquez H. Disturbance observerbased control of non-linear haptic teleoperation systems. IET Control Theory & Applications, 2011, 5(18): 2063–2074MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mohammadi A, Marquez H J, Tavakoli M. Disturbance observerbased trajectory following control of nonlinear robotic manipulators. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics. 2011Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mohammadi A, Tavakoli M, Marquez H, et al. Nonlinear disturbance observer design for robotic manipulators. Control Engineering Practice, 2013, 21(3): 253–267Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Laghrouche S, Ahmed F S, Mehmood A. Pressure and friction observer-based backstepping control for a VGT pneumatic actuator. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2014, 22(2): 456–467Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Arimoto S. Passivity-based control [robot dynamics]. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (Volume 1). San Francisco: IEEE, 2000, 227–232Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Shibata T, Murakami T. A null space force control based on passivity in redundant manipulator. In: ICM2007 4th IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics. Kumamoto: IEEE, 2007, 1–6Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ott C, Albu-Schaffer A, Kugi A, et al. On the passivity-based impedance control of flexible joint robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2008, 24(2): 416–429Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kawai H, Murao T, Sato R, et al. Passivity-based control for 2DOF robot manipulators with antagonistic bi-articular muscles. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA). Denver: IEEE, 2011, 1451–1456Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Foudil A, Hadia S. Passivity based control of a 3-DOF robot manipulator. In: International Conference on Communication, Computer & Power (ICCCP). Muscat, 2007, 56–59Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bouakrif F, Boukhetala D, Boudjema F. Passivity-based controller- observer for robot manipulators. In: 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications. Damascus: IEEE, 2008, 1–5Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Landau I D, Lozano R, M’ Saad M, et al. Adaptive Control: Algorithms, Analysis and Applications. London: Springer, 2011Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sun T, Pei H, Pan Y, et al. Neural network-based sliding mode adaptive control for robot manipulators. Neurocomputing, 2011, 74(14–15): 2377–2384Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Aseltine J, Mancini A, Sarture C. A survey of adaptive control systems. IRE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1958, 6(1): 102–108Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Åström K J, Wittenmark B. On self tuning regulators. Automatica, 1973, 9(2): 185–199zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Slotine J J E, Li W. On the adaptive control of robot manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 1987, 6(3): 49–59Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lozano R, Brogliato B. Adaptive control of robot manipulators with flexible joints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1992, 37(2): 174–181MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Huang S, Tan K K, Lee T H. Adaptive friction compensation using neural network approximations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 2000, 30 (4): 551–557Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Purwar S, Kar I N, Jha A N. Adaptive control of robot manipulators using fuzzy logic systems under actuator constraints. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Volume 3). IEEE, 2004, 1449–1454Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Schindele D, Aschemann H. Adaptive friction compensation based on the LuGre model for a pneumatic rodless cylinder. In: Industrial Electronics, 2009. IECON’09 35th Annual Conference of IEEE. Porto: IEEE, 2009, 1432–1437Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Garpinger O, Hägglund T, Cederqvist L. Software for PID design: Benefits and pitfalls. In: 2nd IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control. Brescia, 2012, 2(1): 140–145Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Jara C A, Candelas F A, Gil P, et al. Ejs + EjsRL: An interactive tool for industrial robots simulation, computer vision and remote operation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2011, 59(6): 389–401Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Corke P I. A robotics toolbox for MATLAB. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 1996, 3(1): 24–32Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Corke P. Robotics, Vision and Control: Fundamental Algorithms in MATLAB. Berlin: Springer, 2011Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Falconi R, Melchiorri C. Roboticad: An educational tool for robotics. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress. Korea, 2008, 9111–9116Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Žlajpah L. Integrated environment for modelling, simulation and control design for robotic manipulators. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 2001, 32(2): 219–234zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Maza J I, Ollero A. HEMERO: A MATLAB-Simulink toolbox for robotics. In: 1st Workshop on Robotics Education and Training. Germany, 2001, 43–50Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Alsina P J. ROBOTLAB: A software for robot graphic simulation. Simpósio Brasileiro de Automação Inteligente, 1997, 465–470Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Nethery J F, Spong M W. Robotica: A mathematica package for robot analysis. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 1994, 1 (1): 13–20Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Dean-Leon E, Nair S, Knoll A. User friendly Matlab-toolbox for symbolic robot dynamic modeling used for control design. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). Guangzhou: IEEE, 2012, 2181–2188Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Rohmer E, Singh S P, Freese M. V-REP: A versatile and scalable robot simulation framework. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Tokyo: IEEE, 2013, 1321–1326Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Breijs A, Klaassens B, Babuska R. Matlab design environment for robotic manipulators. In: 16th IFAC World Congress. Prague, 2005, 1331–1336Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Shah S V, Nandihal P V, Saha S K. Recursive dynamics simulator (ReDySim): A multibody dynamics solver. Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters, 2012, 2: 063011Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ferreira N F, Machado J T. RobLib: An educational program for robotics. In: Symposium on Robot Control (SYROCO). Vienna, 2000, 563–568Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Arm6x Manual. Concurrent Dynamics International, 2014Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Fueanggan S, Chokchaitam S. Dynamics and kinematics simulation for robots. In: International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology—Spring Conference. Singapore: IEEE, 2009, 136–140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syed Ali Ajwad
    • 1
  • Jamshed Iqbal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhammad Imran Ullah
    • 1
  • Adeel Mehmood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations