Hybrid PD/PID Controller Design for Two-Link

Flexible Manipulators
Rasheedat M. Mahamood
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical
Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: Mahamoodmr@unilorin.edu.ng
Jimoh O. Pedro
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical
Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: Jimoh.Pedro@wits.ac.za
AbstractThis paper investigates the development of a hybrid
collocated PD and non-collocated PID controller designed for
input tracking and vibration control of two-link exible ma-
nipulator. The two-link robot manipulator was modelled using
Lagrange and assumed mode method. The PD controller is used
for motion tracking and the PID for vibration control. Effect of
changing controller gains on performance is studied using two
case studies. Also studied is the effect of payload variation on
the performance of the proposed controller. The performance of
the designed controllers is evaluated in terms of input tracking
capability, energy utilization, deection suppression and vibration
control. Results show that a simple PD-PID controller can
be effectively designed for point-to-point motion control and
vibration suppression for two link exible manipulators. Also the
study reveals that the controller is robust to payload variation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Advantages of exible robot manipulators over their rigid
counterparts cannot be overemphasised: they require less
material, lower power consumption, have higher manipulation
speed, can use smaller actuators, are more manoeuvrable and
transportable, are safer to operate due to reduced inertia,
higher payload to robot weight ratio and most importantly
they have less overall cost. Amidst the aforementioned
advantages, the control of exible manipulators to maintain
accurate positioning is very challenging. The exible nature
and distributed characteristics of the system makes the
dynamics a highly non-linear one [1]. Application of exible
link robot in industry is expected to increase only if their
performance is improved.
The control strategies for exible manipulator systems
are classied as: feedforward (open-loop) and feedback
(closed-loop) control [1]. Open-loop control (feedforward)
[2], [3] [4], which is the simplest method does not require
any measurement from the plant for the control action to
be implemented. The problem with the open loop control
is that exact knowledge of the plant is required. Feedback
control strategies for Flexible Manipulator Systems (FMSs)
are classied as collocated and non-collocated control.
Collocated means the actuators and the sensors are at the
same location. It is used to guarantee stable control of
rigid-body motion. Non-collocated control on the other hand
means that the actuators and the sensors are at different
locations. Closed loop (feedback) control technique utilizes
an accurate real time monitoring of the plant to be controlled
for successful implementation of control action. Different
methods have been used in closed-loop form to control
exible link manipulator. Examples include Proportional-
Integral-Derivative (PID) [5], end-point acceleration feedback
[6], [7], state feedback [8], optimal control technique [9],
robust control techniques [10], and singular perturbation
method [11], [12].
The most widely used form of industrial controllers is the
PID Controller. They constitute more than 90% of feedback
controller used today [13]. This is because it is cheap, simple
in structure, and robust in performance over a wide range
of operating conditions [14]. PID control is also good at
dealing with actuator saturation and integrator windup [15].
This is why many authors have designed controller for FMSs
based on PID control technique [13], [15], [16], [17], [18],
[19]. Tokhi and Azad [5] carried out a comprehensive study
on open loop control and a hybrid collocated proportional
derivative (PD) and non-collocated PID control strategy for
single-link exible manipulator. Simulation and experimental
results showed a better performance in the proposed hybrid
PD-PID controllers. Cheong el al. [20] also developed a PID
composite controller for single link exible manipulator. PD
and a disturbance observer were proposed to control the slow
dynamics while PID for fast dynamics. Experimental results
show the effectiveness of the proposed controller.
The literature shows that relatively few PID controllers
have been used to control FMSs compared to their rigid
counterpart. The reason can be associated to problem of the
common tuning methods that shows sluggish responses when
applied to a non-minimum phase system like FMSs [17].
In this study, a hybrid PD-PID controller is developed for
two-link FMSs. The manipulator is modelled using Lagrange
and assumed mode methods. The PD controller is for point to
point motion control, while the PID controller is for vibration
suppression. Simulation is performed within Matlab/Simulink
environment for evaluation of the control strategies. A
unit-step response analysis is conducted, and performance
evaluation of the control strategies is performed in terms of
Proceedings of 2011 8th Asian Control Conference (ASCC)

WeB1.4
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, May 15-18, 2011
- 1358 -
Fig. 1. Two-link exible manipulator system
reference tracking, deection, end-point acceleration, and
input torque. Effects of varying payload on the proposed
controller is also studied. The results are presented and
discussed. The paper ends with concluding remarks.
II. SYSTEM MATHEMATICAL MODEL
A. Modelling of robotic manipulators
Lagrangian approach is commonly used to derive the dy-
namic equations of motion of exible multi-body systems,
although there are three main methods used in the literature:
Newton-Euler, Lagrangian approach and Hamilton approach
[21]. Assumed mode method is the most used approxima-
tion method for reducing partial differential equation (PDE)
(equation of motion) into ordinary differential equation (ODE)
[22]. The rst two modes are adequate to describe the system
dynamics [23]. The model of the two-link exible, planar,
manipulators derived by [22] is used in this study. The links
are modelled as Euler-Bernoulli beams, with proper clamped-
mass boundary conditions. It is assumed the beams elastic
deections are small and no deections in the axial direction.
B. Formulation of the recursive kinematics equations
Figure 1 shows a two-link exible robot manipulator sys-
tem, both links are actuated by individual motors at the hubs.
(

X
0

Y
0
), (X
i
Y
i
), and (

X
i

Y
i
) are the inertial frame, the rigid
body moving frame, and the exible body moving frame
associated with the i
th
link.
i
is the angular position of the
i
th
link, and y
i
( x
i
) is the transversal deection of the i
th
link (0 x
i
l
i
) where l
i
is the length of the i
th
link.
The rigid transformation matrix and the elastic homogenous
transformation matrix due to the deection of the link are
dened respectively as:
A
i
=
_
cos
i
sin
i
sin
i
cos
i
_
and E
i
=
_
1 y

ie
y

ie
1
_
(1)
where y

ie
=
_
yi
xi
_
xi=li
, and tan
1
(y

ie
) y

ie
(small
deections assumption). The global transformation matrix
W
i
transforming coordinates from

X
0

Y
0
to X
i
Y
i
follows a
recursion as:
W
i
= W
i1
E
i1
A
i
=

W
i1
A
i
,

W
0
= I (2)
The previous absolute position vectors p
i
of a point along the
deected i
th
link, is dened by recursive kinematics equations:
p
i
= r
i
+ W
i
i
p
i
, r
i+1
= r
i
+ W
i
i
r
i+1
(3)
where
i
p
i
=
i
p
i
(x
i
) = (x
i
y
i
(x
i
))
T
is the position of a point
along the deected i
th
link, with respect to frame (X
i
, Y
i
),
and
i
r
i+1
=
i
p
i
(l
i
) = (l
i
y
i
(l
i
))
T
being the position of the
origin of frame (X
i
, Y
i
). The absolute velocity of this point
p
i
on the links is:
p
i
= r
i
+

W
i
i
p
i
+W
i
i
p
i
, r
i+1
= r
i
+

W
i
i
r
i+1
+W
i
i
r
i+1
(4)
and r
i+1
=
i
p
i
(l
i
), with
i
p
i
(x
i
) = (0 y
i
(x
i
))
T
. The links are
assumed inextensible in the longitudinal direction. The rates
of the recursions take the form of:
W
i
=

W
i1
A
i
+

W
i1

A
i

W
i
=

W
i
E
i
+ W
i

E
i
(5)
C. Lagrangian formulation
The system total kinetic energy T is given by:
T =
n

i=1
T
hi
+
n

i=1
T
li
+ T
p
(6)
where T
hi
, T
li
, and T
p
are the kinetic energies of the i
th
hub,
i
th
link, and the payload, respectively. The i
th
hub kinetic
energy is given by:
T
hi
=
1
2
m
hi
r
T
i
r
i
+
1
2
J
hi

2
i
(7)
where m
hi
is the mass of the i
th
hub, J
hi
is the moment of
inertia of the i
th
hub, and
i
is the absolute angular velocity
of frame (X
i
, Y
i
):

i
=
i

j=1

j
+
i

k=1
y

ke
(8)
The kinetic energy of the i
th
link is given by:
T
li
=
1
2
_
li
0

i
(x
i
) p
T
i
(x
i
) p
i
(x
i
)dx
i
(9)
where
i
is the linear density of the i
th
link. The kinetic energy
associated with the payload is given by:
T
p
=
1
2
m
p
r
T
n+1
r
n+1
+
1
2
J
p
_

2
i
+ y

ne
_
(10)
where m
p
and J
p
are the mass and moment of inertia of the
payload located at the end of link n. The total potential energy
U is given by:
U =
n

i=1
U
i
=
n

i=1
1
2
_
li
0
(EI)
i
(x
i
)
_
d
2
y
i
(x
i
)
dx
2
i
_
2
dx
i
(11)
U
i
is the elastic energy stored in the i
th
link, with (EI)
i
being its exural rigidity.
Computing the total kinetic energy T and potential energy U,
then the Lagrangian L is given by:
L = T U (12)
- 1359 -
D. Assumed mode shapes
The links are modelled as Euler-Bernoulli beams and they
satisfy the following equation:
(EI)
i

4
y
i
(x
i
, t)
x
4
i
+
i

2
y
i
(x
i
, t)
t
2
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n (13)
where y
i
is the deection of the i
th
link. Equation (13) is a
partial differential equation satisfying the following boundary
conditions:
y
i
(0, t) = 0, y

i
(0, t) = 0, i = 1, . . . , n (14)
Assuming a n
ei
number of modes, deection of each link can
be obtained by the method of separation of variables as:
y
i
(x
i
, t) =
ne
i

j=1

ij
(x
i
)
ij
(t) (15)
where
ij
(t) are the time varying variable associated with the
special mode shape function
ij
(x) of the i
th
link. Solution
of the two variables are as follows:

ij
(x
i
) = C
1,ij
sin(
ij
x
i
) + C
2,ij
cos(
ij
x
i
)
+ C
3,ij
sinh(
ij
x
i
) + C
4,ij
cosh(
ij
x
i
) (16)

ij
(t) = exp(j
ij
t)
= C
5,ij
sin(
ij
t) + C
6,ij
cos(
ij
t) (17)
where:

4
ij
=
2
ij

i
/(EI)
i
(18)

ij
is the natural angular frequency of the i
th
link,
C
1,ij
. . . C
6,ij
are constants obtained from the following
boundary conditions, Eq. (14). This yields:
C
2,ij
+ C
4,ij
= 0, C
1,ij
+ C
3,ij
= 0 (19)
E. Dynamic equations of motion
The dynamic model is formulated using Lagrange-Euler
equation:
d
dt
_
L
q
i
_

L
q
i
=
i
, i = 1, . . . , n (20)
Solution of Eq. (20) yields the closed form equation:
B(q(t)) q(t) +h(q(t), q(t)) +Kq(t) = (t) (21)
where q(t) =
_

1
, . . . ,
n
,
11
, . . . ,
1ne
1
, . . . ,
n1
, . . . ,
nne
i
_
is a N-vector generalised coordinates (N = n+

i=1
n
ei
),
is an n-vector of generalized torques applied at the joints. B
is a positive-denite symmetric inertia matrix, h is a vector of
Coriolis and centripetal forces, and K is the diagonal stiffness
matrix. Detailed derivation of the mathematical model can be
found in [22].
Fig. 2. PD-PID controller structure for the two-link exible manipulator
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN
The control objective for the two-link exible manipulator
shown in Fig. 1 is to design PD collocated controllers for
each link so that the hub angles follow the reference trajecto-
ries.Also to design non-collocated PID controllers so that the
vibrations of the end effectors are eliminated simultaneously.
There are two stages involved in the controller design. the
rst stage involves the design of PD controllers for hub angle
motion; while the second stage is concerned with the PID
controller for the vibration control of the two links.
A. Collocated PD Controller
Similar PD control structures are used for both links, they
only differ in gains. The PD control input is given by:
u
PDi
(t) = A
ci
_
K
Pi
(
i
d
(t)
i
(t)) K
vi

i
(t)
_
i = 1, 2
(22)
where: u
PDi
(t) is the PD control input,
i
d
(t),
i
(t) and

i
(t)
are the desired joint angle, actual joint angle and actual joint
velocity of i
th
-link respectively, K
Pi
, K
vi
, and A
ci
are the PD
control proportional and derivative gains, and motor amplier
gain for the i
th
-link respectively.
B. Non-Collocated PID Controller
A separate PID controller is designed for the control of end-
point elastic acceleration of each of the links; this is necessary
because of the coupling effects. The control input for the i
th
-
link is as follows:
u
PIDi
(t) = K
Pi
e
i
(t) + K
Ii
_
e
i
(t)dt + K
Di
e
i
(t) i = 1, 2
(23)
where e
i
(t) =
i
d

i
(t),
i
d
, and
i
(t) are the desired
and actual tip acceleration of i
th
-link respectively. One of the
control objectives is to achieve zero elastic acceleration which
corresponds to zero vibration, hence
i
d
= 0.
C. Hybrid Controller
The two control schemes are combined as shown in Fig. 2.
The motion tracking and the vibration suppression are required
to be achieved simultaneously. The total control input
i
(t)
from each motor is given by adding (22) and (23):

i
(t) =
2

i=1
[u
PDi
(t) + u
PIDi
(t)] (24)
- 1360 -
D. Performance Evaluation
The performance of the proposed controller is investigated
using the performance index:
J =
1
t
f
(J
1
+ J
2
+ J
3
) (25)
J
1
=
_
t
f
0

i=1

i
d

i
(t)

imax
_
2
+
_

i
d

i
(t)

imax
_
2

dt
(26)
J
2
=
_
t
f
0
_
2

i=1
_
_
y
i
d
y
i
(t)
y
imax
_
2
+
_

i
d

i
(t)

imax
_
2
__
dt
(27)
J
3
=
_
t
f
0
_
2

i=1
_
_

i
d
(t)
i
(t)

imax
_
2
__
dt (28)
J is the overall performance index; J
1
is the performance
index related to the rigid body motion tracking; J
2
is the per-
formance index related to the deection and vibration control
of the manipulator; J
3
is the performance index related to the
overall control inputs at the joints; t
f
,
imax
,

imax
, y
imax
,

imax
, and
imax
are the nal simulation time, maximum hub
angle, maximum hub angular velocity, maximum deection,
maximum tip acceleration, and maximum actuator torque of
the link i respectively. y
i
(t) and
i
(t) are the deection and
torque of the i
th
link respectively. y
i
d
is the desired hub
deection of the i
th
link.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
Numerical simulation was carried out on the two-link
exible manipulator in Matlab/Simulink environment to test
the performance of the proposed control scheme. The system
parameters used in the simulation are presented Table I.
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THE TWO-LINK FLEXIBLE MANIPULATOR [22]
Symbol Parameter Value

1
=
2
Mass density 0.2 kgm
3
EI
1
= EI
2
Flexural rigidity 1.0 Nm
2
l
1
= l
2
Links length 0.5 m
J
h
1
= J
h
2
Hub mass moment of inertia 0.2 kgm
2
G Gear ratio 1
m
1
= m
2
Mass of the link 0.1 kg
mp Mass of the payload 0.1 kg
J
l
1
= J
l
2
Link mass moment of inertia 0.0083 kgm
2
Jp Payload mass moment of inertia 0.0005 kgm
2
The manipulator is to track a desired step response while
suppressing end-effector vibration. Ziegler-Nichols gain tuning
procedure was tried, but very poor performance was achieved.
This is because two-link exible manipulator is a highly open
loop unstable system. Gains are tuned manually in two stages.
A. Stage 1
Initially, both PID controllers and the PD controller for
link 2 are turned off. The amplier gains are xed as 1
for both links. The proportional and derivative gains of link
1 are then tuned simultaneously. Unlike the Ziegler-Nichols
procedure where the proportional gain is tuned until there is
overshoot; two-link exible manipulator is a highly openloop
unstable and highly coupled system. This method does not
work well for the gain tuning. According to [24], for optimum
performance of PID controllers, the proportional, integral and
derivative gains must be simultaneously tuned. Manual tuning
is still the most favoured method despite different types of
tuning methods available Eriksson and Wikander [25]. As the
proportional gain was tune, the derivative gain has to be tune
simultaneously in order to achieve satisfactory result. while
tuning the PD gains of the st link, the derivative gain of
the second gain has to be tune otherwise improved result
cannot be achieved. tuning the three controller gains enable
good tracking to be achieved in link 1. This behaviour can be
attributed to the coupling in the system. Then the Proportional
gain of the second link controller is tuned systematically . As
the proportional gain of the second link is tuned the good
tracking already obtained in in link 1 is affected therefore
the previous three already tuned gains needed to be re-
tuned simultaneously until good tracking in the two links
are achieved. To study the effect of controller gains on the
performance two sets of controller gains are obtained for two
cases as shown in Table II.
TABLE II
PD CONTROLLER GAINS FOR THE TWO-LINK FLEXIBLE MANIPULATOR
Cases PD Gains
Link 1 Link 2
Kp Kv Kp Kv
1 0.55 1.5 0.06 0.2
2 1.1 1.15 0.25 0.42
B. Stage 2
After achieving good motion tracking with the PD con-
troller, then the PID controllers are also tuned systematically
as done in stage 1. Tuning the PID tends to degrade the perfect
tracking initially obtained. After some few trials of tuning and
re-tuning, the gains in Table III are achieved for the two cases.
The proposed algorithm is realizable experimentally because
PD/PID control algorithm has been successfully implemented
for single-link exible manipulator in the literature [20], [5].
The future work is to carry out experimental validation and
also to extend this algorithm to a 4-degree of freedom gantry
type two-link exible manipulator. Results of the effects of
two different sets of PD and PID controllers gains on the
response of the two-link manipulator are shown in Figs.35.
Their effects on the performance index are also studied using
(25).
TABLE III
PID CONTROLLER GAINS FOR THE TWO-LINK FLEXIBLE MANIPULATOR
Cases PID Gains
Link 1 Link 2
Kp K
I
K
D
Kp K
I
K
D
1 2 10
4
2 0.1 0.1 1.5
2 0.2 10
3
1.5 0.1 0.1 0.5
- 1361 -
Fig. 3. Time histories of joints angles with hybrid PD-PID controller for
cases 1 and 2
Fig. 4. Time histories of end-points accelerations with hybrid PD-PID
controller for cases 1 and 2.
Figure 3 shows the motion tracking, joint angles of link 1
and 2 in case 1 reaching the steady state at about 5 and 7
seconds respectively. While in case 2, the joint angles reach
the steady state in 3 and 5 seconds respectively. Comparing
these two cases it is observed that the higher the PD gains
the faster the response to the input tracking. Also the higher
the PID gains the faster the vibration suppression as shown in
Fig. 4. Case 1 with higher PID settles in less than 5 seconds
as compared to case 2 which settles at about 7 seconds. The
Fig. 5. Time histories of torque inputs with hybrid PD-PID controller for
cases 1 and 2.
Fig. 6. Time histories of joints angles with hybrid PD-PID controller for
case study 1 with varying payloads.
Fig. 7. Time histories of end-points accelerations with hybrid PD-PID
controller for case study 1 with varying payloads.
faster response achieved in case 2 is traded off for higher
torque required (maximum of 0.84 Nm for link 1 and 0.36Nm
for link 2) shown in Fig. 5 compared to maximum of 0.52 and
0.145 Nm for links 1 and 2 respectively in case 1. However
the overall performance index of case 2 (0.3389) is better
than that of case 1 (0.3976) according to the factors penalized
in the performance index in Eq. (25). Effect of variation in
payload was also studied. Figures 6 - 8 show the response of
the two-link exible manipulator with hybrid PD collocated
and PID non-collocated control to a payload of 0.04 kg,
0.08kg and the nominal 0.1 kg for the case 1. Figure 6 shows
the joint angles input tracking with the various payloads. It
can be observed that there is overlapping in the response.
The endpoint accelerations show increase in amplitude of
vibration with increase in payload but the ststem settles at
the same time (see Fig. 7). Hence variation in payload does
not affect the vibration suppression of the proposed controller.
The applied torques shown in Fig. 8 also show no signicant
change . These mean there is no signicant effect on controller
performance with payload variation. It can be concluded that
the proposed controller is robust to payload variation.
- 1362 -
Fig. 8. Time histories of torque inputs with hybrid PD-PID controller for
case study 1 with varying payloads.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper developed hybrid collocated PD and non-
collocated PID controller for a two-link exible manipulator.
The PD controller is for joint motion control and the PID
controller is for endpoint vibration suppression. The proposed
hybrid controller was tested within Matlab/Simulink environ-
ment. The performance of the proposed controller has been
evaluated in terms of input tracking, vibration suppression
and control torque. Effects of payload variation on the con-
troller was also studied. Simulation result using the proposed
controller has shown that the controller is very effective for
input tracking and vibration control for a highly nonlinear and
coupled system like two-link exible manipulator. Payload
variation does not have a signicant effect on the proposed
controller; this shows that the controller is robust. It can
therefore be concluded that the proposed hybrid PD/PID
controller is capable of tracking the desired joint angle while
suppressing vibration simultaneously in the presence of pay-
load uncertainty of the two-link exible manipulator.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Strategy (AMTS), an operating unit of the Council
for Scientic and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa.
REFERENCES
[1] M. O. Tokhi and A. K. M. Azad, Flexible Robot Manipulators -
Modelling, Simulation and Control, Institution of Engineering and
Technology, London, 2008.
[2] M. S. Alam and M. O. Tokhi, Designing feedforward command shapers
with multi-objective genetic optimisation for vibration control of a
single-link exible manipulator, Engineering Applications of Articial
Intelligence, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, pp. 229 246.
[3] L. Consolini and A. Piazzi, Generalized Bang-Bang Control for Feed-
forward Constrained Regulation, Automatica, Vol. 45, No. 10, 2009, pp.
2234 2243.
[4] Z. Mohamed and M. O. Tokhi, Command Shaping Techniques for
Vibration Control of a Flexible Robot Manipulator, Mechatronics, Vol.
14, No. 1, 2004, pp. 69 90.
[5] M. O. Tokhi and A. K. M. Azad, Control of Flexible Manipulator
Systems, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, Vol. 210, No. 12, 1996,
pp. 113 130.
[6] M. O. Tokhi and M. Z. Md. Zain, Hybrid Learning Control Schemes with
Acceleration Feedback of a Flexible Manipulator System, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems
and Control Engineering, Vol. 220, No. 4, 2006, pp. 257267.
[7] F. Khorrami and S. Jain, Non-Linear Control with End-Point Accel-
eration Feedback for a Two-Link Flexible Manipulator: Experimental
Results, Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1993, pp. 505
530.
[8] M. Baroundi, M. Saad and W. Ghie, State-Feedback and Linear
Quadratic Regulator Applied to a Single-Link Flexible Manipulator,
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2009, pp. 1381 1386.
[9] D. T. Pham and M. Kalyoncu, Optimisation of a Fuzzy Logic Controller
for a Flexible Single-Link Robot Arm Using the Bees Algorithm,
Proceedings of the 7
th
IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Informatics, 2009, pp. 475 480.
[10] J. G. Yim, J. S. Yeon, J. Lee, J. H. Park, S. H. Lee and J. S. Hur, Robust
Control of Flexible Robot Manipulators, Proceedings of the SICE-ICASE
International Joint Conference, 2006, pp. 3963 3968.
[11] J. Dong and G. H. Yang, H Control Design for Fuzzy Discrete-Time
Singularly Perturbed Systems via Slow State Variables Feedback: An
LMI-Based Approach, Information Sciences, Vol. 179, No. 17, 2009,
pp. 3041 3058.
[12] F. Khorrami and U. Ozguner, Perturbation Methods in Control of
Flexible Link Manipulators, Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, 1988, pp. 310 315.
[13] M. T. Ho and Y. W. Tu, PID Controller Design for a Flexible Link
Manipulator, Proceedings of the 44
th
IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control and European Control Conference 2005, pp. 6841 6846.
[14] K. H. Ang, G. Chong and Y. Li, PID Control System Analysis, Design,
and Technology, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol.
13, No. 4, 2005, pp. 559 576.
[15] B. Zain and M. O. Tokhi and S. F. Toha, PID-Based Control of a Single-
Link Flexible Manipulator in Vertical Motion with Genetic Optimisation,
Proceedings of the Third UKSim European Symposium on Computer
Modeling and Simulation (EMS09), 2009, pp. 355 360.
[16] M. A. Ahmad, Vibration and Input Tracking Control of Flexible Ma-
nipulator Using LQR with Non-Collocated PID Controller, Proceedings
of the Second UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and
Simulation (EMS08), 2008, pp. 40 45.
[17] S. Z. He, S. H. Tan, F. L. Xu and P. Z. Wang, PID Self-Tuning Control
Using a Fuzzy Adaptive Mechanism, Proceedings of the Second IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 2, 1993, pp. 708713.
[18] M. Sasaki, A. Asai, T. Shimizu and S. Ito, Self-Tuning Control of a
Two-Link Flexible Manipulator Using Neural Networks, Proceedings of
the ICROS-SICE International Joint Conference, 2009, pp. 2468 2473.
[19] M. A. Ahmad, M. H. Suid, M. S. Ramli, M. A. Zawawi and R. M. T. R.
Ismail, PD Fuzzy Logic with Non-collocated PID Approach for Vi-
bration Control of Flexible Joint Manipulator, Proceedings of the 6
th
International Colloquium on Signal Processing and Its Applications
(CSPA), 2010, pp. 1 5.
[20] J. Cheong, W. K. Chung and Y. Youm, PID Composite Controller and
Its Tuning for Flexible Link Robots, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3,
2002, pp. 2212 2217.
[21] M. Farid, Dynamic Modelling and Control of Flexible Manipulators, Phd
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary,
Alberta, 1997.
[22] A. De Luca and B. Siciliano, Closed-Form Dynamic Model of Planar
Multilink Lightweight Robots, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1991, pp. 826 839.
[23] J. M. Martins, Z. Mohamed, M. O. Tokhi, J. Sa da Costa and M. A.
Botto, Approaches for Dynamic Modelling of Flexible Manipulator
Systems, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications, Vol.
150, No. 4, 2003, pp. 401 411.
[24] Y. Li, K. H. Ang and G. C. Y. Chong, PID Control System Analysis
and Design: Problems, Remedies, and Future Directions, IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp. 32 41.
[25] E. Eriksson and J. Wikander, Robust PID Design of Flexible Manipu-
lators Through Pole Assignment, Proceedings of the 7
th
International
Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 2002, pp. 420 425.
- 1363 -