Advertisement

Comparative Study of Controller Optimization Techniques for a Robotic Manipulator

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 258)

Abstract

A robotic manipulator is a highly nonlinear, highly coupled, Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) and dynamic system. Being complex in nature conventional Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller tuning methods, in general, are not applicable to these systems. For the past two decades, with the advent of efficient and high speed computing power, optimization techniques are being applied for complex non-linear processes for tuning of controllers. These techniques yield optimized performance for customised performance indexes. This paper presents a detailed comparative study of performances of three optimization techniques for the tuning of PID controllers for a two-link planar rigid robotic manipulator. In this work tuning of PID controllers has been carried out using three techniques namely Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Simulated Annealing (SA) and Genetic Algorithm (GA). Two performance indices namely Integral of Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral of Absolute Change in Control Output (IACCO) with equal weightage for both the links are considered for optimization. The robustness testing of optimized controllers is done for the trajectory tracking, model uncertainties and disturbance rejection. The simulation results clearly indicate that the PSO outperforms both SA and GA.

Keywords

Two-link planar robotic manipulator PID controller Particle swarm optimization Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Trajectory tracking Robustness testing 

References

  1. 1.
    Panwar, V., Kumar, N., Sukavanam, N., Borm, J.-H.: Adaptive neural controller for cooperative multiple robot manipulator system manipulating a single object. Appl. Soft Comput. 12, 216–227 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ang, K.H., Chong, G., Li, Y.: PID control system analysis, design and technology. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 13(4), 559–576 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuc, T.-Y., Han, W.-G.: An adaptive PID learning control of robot manipulators. Automatica 36, 717–725 (2000)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ayala, H.V.H., Coelho, L.d.S.: Tuning of PID controller based on a multiobjective genetic algorithm applied to a robotic manipulator. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 8968–8974 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, X., Yu, W.: A systematic tuning method of PID controller for robot manipulators. In: 9th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, pp. 274–279 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bingul, Z., Karahan, O.: Tuning of fractional PID controllers using PSO algorithm for robot trajectory control. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, Turkey, pp. 955–960 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juang, J-G., Huang, M-T., Liu, W-K.: PID control using presearched genetic algorithms for a MIMO system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man and Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 38,716–727 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaing, Z.-L.: A particle swarm optimization approach for optimum design of PID controller in AVR system. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 19(2), 384–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhao, J., Li, T., Qian, J.: Application of particle swarm optimization algorithm on robust PID controller tuning. Lect. notes in Comp. Sci. 3612, 948–957 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin, C.-L., Jan, H.Y., Shieh, N.C.: GA-based multiobjective PID control for a linear brushless DC motor. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 8(1), 56–65 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bagis, A.: Tabu search algorithm based PID controller tuning for desired system specifications. J. Franklin Inst. 348, 2795–2812 (2011)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puangdownreong, D., Sujitjorn, S.: Obtaining an optimum PID controller via adaptive tabu search. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptive and Natural Computing Algorithm (ICANNGA) part II, vol. 4432, pp. 747–755 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lianghong, W., Yaonan, W., Shaowu, Z., Wen, T.: Design of PID controller with incomplete derivation based on differential evolution algorithm. J. Syst. Eng. Elec. 19(3), 578–583 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, Y., Guo, Z., Liu., J.: An improved ant colony algorithm for PID parameters optimization. In :International Conference on Intelligence and Computing Technol. and Automation, pp. 157–160 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hai-bin, D., Dao-bo, W., Xiu-fen, Y.: Novel approach to nonlinear PID parameter optimization using ant colony optimization algorithm. J. Bionic Eng. 3, 73–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liang, X-m., Li, S-c., Hassan, A.B.: A novel PID controller tuning method based on optimization techniques. J. Cent. South. Univ. Technol. 17, 1036–1042 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subudhi, B., Morris, A.S.: Dynamic modeling, simulation and control of a manipulator with flexible links and joints. Robot. Auton. Syst. 41, 257–270 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selleri, S., Mussetta, M., Pirinoli, P., Zich, R.E., Matekovits, L.: Some insights over new variations of the particle swarm optimization method. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett. 5, 235–238 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zamani, M., Karimi-Ghartemani, M., Sadati, N., Parniani, M.: Design of a fractional order PID controller for an AVR using particle swarm optimization. Control. Eng. Prac. 17, 1380–1387 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang, H-C., Chen, C-P., Wang, P-R.: Particle Swarm Optimization for solving the inverse kinematics of 7-DOF robotic manipulators. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics, pp. 3105–3110 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt Jr, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220, 671–680 (1983)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davidson, R., Harel, D.: Drawing graphs nicely using simulated annealing. ACM Trans. Graph. 15, 301–331 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vasan, A., Raju, K.S.: Comparative analysis of simulated annealing, simulated quenching and genetic algorithms for optimal reservoir operation. Appl. Soft Comput. 9, 274–281 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen, S.-M., Chien, C.-Y.: Solving the traveling salesman problem based on the genetic simulated annealing ant colony system with particle swarm optimization techniques. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 14439–14450 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization & Machine Learning. Pearson Education, India (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garg, D.P., Kumar, M.: Optimization techniques applied to multiple manipulators for path planning and torque minimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 15, 241–252 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instrumentation and Control Engineering DivisionNetaji Subhas Institute of TechnologyDwarkaIndia

Personalised recommendations