Dynamic modeling,system identification and comparative study of various control strategies for a spatial parallel manipulator

Abstract

The significant challenges seen with the mathematical modeling and control of spatial parallel manipulators are its difficulty in the kinematic formulation and the inability to real-time control. The analytical approaches for the determination of the kinematic solutions are computationally expensive. This is due to the passive joints, solvability issues with non-linear equations, and inherent kinematic constraints within the manipulator architecture. Therefore, this article concentrates on an artificial neural network–based system identification approach to resolve the complexities of mathematical formulations. Moreover, the low computation time with neural networks adds up to its advantage of real-time control. Besides, this article compares the performance of a constant gain proportional–integral–derivative (PID), variable gain proportional–integral–derivative, model predictive controller, and a cascade controller with combined variable proportional–integral–derivative and model predictive controller for real-time tracking of the end-effector. The control strategies are simulated on the Simulink model of a 6-degree-of-freedom 3-PPSS (P—prismatic; S—spherical) parallel manipulator. The simulation and real-time experiments performed on the fabricated manipulator prototype indicate that the proposed cascade controller with position and velocity compensation is an appropriate method for accurate tracking along the desired path. Also, training the network using the experimentally generated data set incorporates the mechanical joint approximations and link deformities present in the fabricated model into the predicted results. In addition, this article showcases the application of Euler–Lagrangian formalism on the 3-PPSS parallel manipulator for its dynamic model incorporating the system constraints. The Lagrangian multipliers include the influence of the constraint forces acting on the manipulator platform. For completeness, the analytical model results have been verified using ADAMS for a pre-defined end-effector trajectory.

Keywords

Robotic manipulator artificial neural network variable proportional–integral–derivative control fuzzy logic model predictive controller

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zeng

Chen

Lew

. From high-touch to high-tech: COVID-19 drives robotics adoption. Tourism Geogr 2020; 22: 724–734.

Stewart

. A platform with six degrees of freedom. Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1965; 180: 371–386.

Bera

Merzouki

Bouamama

, et al. Force control in a parallel manipulator through virtual foundations. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 2012; 226: 1088–1106.

Dasgupta

Mruthyunjaya

. A Newton-Euler formulation for the inverse dynamics of the Stewart platform manipulator. Mech Mach Theory 1998; 33: 1135–1152.

Wang

Zheng

Jin

, et al. Dynamic modeling of spatial 6-Dof parallel manipulator using Kane method. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on E-product E-service and E-entertainment (ICEEE’2010), Henan, China, 7–9 November 2010, pp.10–14. New York: IEEE.

Gallardo-Alvarado

García-Murillo

Islam

, et al. A simple approach to solving the kinematics of the 4-UPS/PS (3R1T) parallel manipulator. J Mech Sci Technol 2016; 30: 2303–2309.

Chen

Liu

, et al. Inverse kinematic and dynamic analysis of a 3-DOF parallel mechanism. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on control, automation, robotics and vision (ICARCV’02), Singapore, 2–5 December 2002, pp.956–961. New York: IEEE.

Yilmaz

Bingul

. Design, analysis and simulation of a 6-DOF serial manipulator. Kocaeli J Sci Eng 2020; 3: 1–7.

Xin

Deng

Zhong

. Closed-form dynamics of a 3-DOF spatial parallel manipulator by combining the Lagrangian formulation with the virtual work principle. Nonlinear Dynam 2016; 86: 1329–1347.

10.

Jiang

. Computational adaptive optimal control for continuous-time linear systems with completely unknown dynamics. Automatica 2012; 48: 2699–2704.

11.

Askarinejad

Fahim

Yazdi

MRH

, et al. Data-driven identification of the Jacobian matrix of a 2-DoF spherical parallel manipulator. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on robotics and mechatronics (ICRoM’2019), Tehran, Iran, 20–21 November 2019, pp.229–234. New York: IEEE.

12.

Helmicki

Jacobson

Nett

. Control oriented system identification: a worst-case/deterministic approach in H/sub infinity/. IEEE T Automat Contr 1991; 36: 1163–1176.

13.

Heydarzadeh

Karbasizadeh

Masouleh

, et al. Experimental kinematic identification and position control of a 3-DOF decoupled parallel robot. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2019; 233: 1841–1855.

14.

Ayten

Çiplak

Dumlu

. Implementation a fractional-order adaptive model-based PID-type sliding mode speed control for wheeled mobile robot. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 2019; 233: 1067–1084.

15.

Natal

Chemori

Pierrot

. Nonlinear control of parallel manipulators for very high accelerations without velocity measurement: stability analysis and experiments on Par2 parallel manipulator. Robotica 2016; 34: 43–70.

16.

Vinodh Kumar

Jerome

. LQR based optimal tuning of PID controller for trajectory tracking of magnetic levitation system. Procedia Engineer 2013; 64: 254–264.

17.

Zhang

Xie

, et al. Active linear quadratic Gaussian control of the vibration of a flexible beam with a time-varying mass. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 2015; 229: 475–484.

18.

Zitouni

Lefebvre

. Linearization of a matrix Riccati equation associated to an optimal control problem. Int J Differ Equat 2014; 2014: 741390.

19.

Kheradmandi

Mhaskar

. Data driven economic model predictive control. In: Liu

Durand

(eds) New directions on model predictive control. Basel: MDPI, 2019, pp.1–23.

20.

Gawthrop

Wang

. Intermittent model predictive control. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 2007; 221: 1007–1018.

21.

Åkesson

Toivonen

. A neural network model predictive controller. J Process Contr 2006; 16: 937–946.

22.

Mollov

Babuška

Abonyi

, et al. Effective optimization for fuzzy model predictive control. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 2004; 12: 661–675.

23.

Pagis

Bouton

Briot

, et al. Enlarging parallel robot workspace through type-2 singularity crossing. Control Eng Pract 2015; 39: 1–11.

24.

Thomas

Sanjeev

Sudheer

, et al. Comparative study of various machine learning algorithms and Denavit–Hartenberg approach for the inverse kinematic solutions in a 3-PPSS parallel manipulator. Ind Robot 2020; 47: 683–695.

25.

Thomas

Joy

Sudheer

. Kinematic and dynamic analysis of a 3-PRUS spatial parallel manipulator. Chin J Mech Eng 2020; 33: 13.

26.

Murray

Lovell

. Dynamic modeling of closed-chain robotic manipulators and implications for trajectory control. IEEE T Robotic Autom 1989; 5: 522–528.

27.

Sooraj Sukumar

Thomas

Sudheer

, et al. Kinematics, structural analysis and control of 3-PPSS parallel manipulator. Int J Innov Technol Explor Eng 2019; 8: 911–916.

28.

Gavin

. The Levenburg–Marqurdt algorithm for nonlinear least squares curve-fitting problems. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2019, pp.1–19.

29.

Thomas

Gaurav

Sudheer

, et al. Modelling and analysis of 3-PSS parallel kinematic mechanism. In: Sen

Mohan

Ananthasuresh

(eds) Mechanism and machine science (Lecture notes in mechanical engineering). Singapore: Springer, 2020, pp.639–655.

30.

Boby

Saha

. Single image based camera calibration and pose estimation of the end-effector of a robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Stockholm, 16–21 May 2016, pp.2435–2440. New York: IEEE.

31.

Shao

Guan

. A dynamic neural network approach for efficient control of manipulators. IEEE T Syst Man Cy: S 2019; 49: 932–941.

32.

Sari

. Performance evaluation of the various training algorithms and network topologies in a neural-network-based inverse kinematics solution for robots. Int J Adv Robot Syst. Epub ahead of print 18 April 2014. DOI: 10.5772/58562.

33.

Burden F and Winkler D. Bayesian regularization of neural networks. In: Livingstone DJ (ed.) Artificial neural networks: methods in Molecular Biology™. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media, 2008, pp.25–44.

34.

Baldi

. Gradient descent learning algorithm overview: a general dynamical systems perspective. IEEE T Neural Networ 1995; 6: 182–195.

35.

Dancer

Tremayne

. R-squared and prediction in regression with ordered quantitative response. J Appl Stat 2005; 32: 483–493.

36.

Sheng

. Optimization design by genetic algorithm controller for trajectory control of a 3-RRR parallel robot. Algorithms 2018; 11: 7.

37.

Nowaková

Pokorný

Pieš

. Conventional controller design based on Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy models. J Appl Logic 2015; 13: 148–155.

38.

Åström

Hägglund

. Revisiting the Ziegler–Nichols step response method for PID control. J Process Contr 2004; 14: 635–650.

39.

Petrov

Ahmed

Ichtev

, et al. Fuzzy–neural model predictive control of multivariable processes. In: Zheng

(ed.) Advanced model predictive control. London: IntechOpen, 2011, pp.125–132.

40.

Godina

Rodrigues

EMG

Pouresmaeil

, et al. Model predictive control home energy management and optimization strategy with demand response. Appl Sci 2018; 8: 408.

41.

Ramasamy

Sidharthan

Kannan

, et al. Optimal tuning of model predictive controller weights using genetic algorithm with interactive decision tree for industrial cement kiln process. Processes 2019; 7: 938.