ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.

19, ISSUE 1/2021

SIMULATION OF INDUSTRIAL ROBOTS’ SIX AXES

MANIPULATOR ARMS – A CASE STUDY

Rabab BENOTSMANE1 and Seyf Eddine KACEMI2 and

László DUDÁS1 and György KOVÁCS3
1
University of Miskolc, Institute of Information Science and Technology, Egyetemváros, 3515 Miskolc Hungary,
E-mail: iitrabab@uni-miskolc.hu
2
University of Science and Technology of Oran Mohamed-Boudiaf, Department of Automation, Oran Algeria,
E-mail: sifoksd@gmail.com
3
University of Miskolc, Institute of Logistics, Egyetemváros, 3515 Miskolc Hungary,
E-mail: altkovac@uni-miskolc.hu

ABSTRACT: Recently, the elements of Industry 4.0 have to be implemented at

manufacturing companies in order to maintain their competitiveness. So the optimal operation
and control of industrial robots are important tasks. Therefore, the topic of the article is
important and up-to-date. Different control techniques are used in case of serial rigid robot
manipulators. In the first part of the article the most important control techniques are
described. In the second part of the study a case study for the control of a six axes manipulator
arm is introduced. In the case study the open-loop and closed-loop simulation of the
investigated manipulator arm using PID controller is carried out. Simulation tests are achieved
by the application of the MATLAB Simulink software in order to control position and velocity of
different joints of the investigated robot arm. The main added value of the article is that it was
confirmed in the case study – based on compared results of open-loop and closed-loop
simulations – that the method applied in the study is efficient and provides the desired trajectory
of the robot arm.
KEYWORDS: industrial robot, control scheme, open-loop and closed-loop simulations, PID
controller.

reduction ratio servomotors used for compensation

1 INTRODUCTION
The control field for the industrial robot has
been extensively addressed by many researchers.
From literature reviews, different approaches have
been proposed (Khalil & al, 2002; Xu & al, 2019).
In an industry where the serial robot or
manipulator's arms take a large part of the work
area (Benotsmane & al, 2019; Kostal & al, 2011), it
is well known to use the most common technic,
based on a decentralized "proportional, integral,
derivative" classical (PID) control for each degree
of freedom, with the development of the robotic
cells in the production chain (Dima & al, 2013;
Yildirim & al, 2018). More sophisticated nonlinear
control schemes have been developed, as computed
torque control, known by inverse dynamic control
(Jankowski & al, 2004), which linearizes and
decouples the equation of motion of the robot. Due
to modeling uncertainties, external disturbances,
non-linear adaptation techniques have been
considered in order to identify online the dynamic
parameters (Hong & al, 2008). More recently, the
properties of the dynamic model have led from
Lyapunov and controls based on the passivity to be
proposed (Chau, 2013). Most industrial robots use
electric servomotors as actuators. In the case of low
89
of the effect of variations in the inertia and gravity
forces (Pratt & al, 2002). In the case of servomotors
with high reduction ratios, the inertia seen by the
motors varies much less, and it is then possible to
model the robot by a linear system, which makes it
possible to decouple the joints. In the context of this
article, we only consider the use of servomotors
with strong reduction ratios as actuators, which
result in robots with rigid joints. The problem of
joint stiffness is obvious when talking about
interaction, with the environment or collisions of
inaccuracies in environmental modeling
(Romanelli, 2011), where it can result in significant
contact forces, which can damage the internal
mechanisms of the robot or its environment. In
industry, manipulator's arms are controlled by
digital computers (Fadali & al, 2013), with a sample
period, it is always considered that the sample
period is short enough to assimilate the hybrid
system (discrete and continuous); therefore, the
simplified chain of control for an articulated robot
arm is illustrated in Figure 1.
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
Fig.1 The control chain of a manipulator arm
This article presents an overview of basic
knowledge on control techniques for serial rigid
robots in a free and constrained spaces, where a
contribution of a case study to control a 6 axes
(DOF) manipulator arm using the classical PID
control will be highlighted, the comparing results
between the open-loop of system and closed-loop
will prove the efficiency of the method in order to
maintain the desired trajectory of the robot arm.
2 GENERAL CONTROL CHAIN FOR
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT
The main purpose of the control chain is to
calculate the joints torque vector applied to the
mechanical system input, which allows getting the
joints position vector q as an output, as shown in
Figure 1, this chain is composed of a “Computer”
which calculates a numerical value N, these
“Numbers” will be transformed into analog electric
signal by the Digital - Analog - Converter (“DAC”)
block. These analog signals represent the
“Voltages” required for the “Motors” that generate
the actuation “Torques” passing through “Gears”
block, that represents the gear ratio which will
produce the final joint torque value for the
“Mechanical robot” to perform the “Motion q”.
Determining the control scheme of a robot arm
with n degrees of freedom (DOF) requires
knowledge of certain equations and some
relationship between torque and position given by
the dynamic model presented (Khalil & al, 2007):
(1)
More simplified:
(2)
Where:
- : the vector (n × 1) of the joint torques.
- and , : are position, velocity and
acceleration vectors (n × 1) respectively.
- : the inertia matrix (n × n), determined
positive and symmetrical.
- : the vector regrouping the forces of
gravity and friction.
- : the vector (n × 1) of gravity.
- : Diagonal of matrix.
- and Fs: the vectors of the viscous and dry
friction parameters respectively, in this paper
will be neglected.
- : the nonlinear limits represented by:
90
(3)
In the control chain shown in Figure 1, there is a
control circuit "Power amplifier" between the
converter DAC and the Motors as presented in
Fig.2.
Fig.2 The control circuit in the control chain
This circuit guarantees the proportionality
between the input voltage Uev of the power
amplifier and the electric current , in the case
where in the case of small variations of .
Consequently, the control chain will be as extended
in Figure 2, and the following relation can be
written:
(4)
(5)
Where:
(6)
- : the electric current
- Proportional gain
- : the parameter of the actuating chain j
- : the desired input to the actuator chain.
- : the reduction ratio
- : the amplifier gain
- : the torque constant
The control synthesis consists in calculating ,
then in calculating the signal Uev allowing to follow
the desired input (Muhammad & al, 2018).
3 THEORY OF DYNAMIC CONTROL
FOR SERIAL ROBOTS
The control of the robot arm stands on two
classifications regarding the movement of the
mechanical structure in the workspace (De Wit &
al, 1996): the first type considers the movements
necessary to a defined task executed in joint or free
space (Gorla & al, 1984). The second type considers
specific movements with forces of contact for the
terminal organ which moves in a constrained space.
3.1 Control in joint space
In the following, a general description of the
various techniques reported in the literature applied
in the joint space is highlighted.
3.1.1 PID control
This technique is applied for the manipulator
robots that use servomotors with strong reduction
ratios. When the system has a linear behavior,
movement control can be achieved by classic
control techniques. A decentralized order PID type
is considered here (proportional–integral–
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
derivative) type. In articles (De Wit & al, 1996;
Whitney, 1969) the classical scheme is improved
with anticipation.
3.1.2 Jacobian control
This technique has been used since the work of
Whitney (Whitney, 1969) where its name refers to
the reverse Jacobian matrix of the manipulator arm
to calculate the target speeds at the joints. It is also
known as resolved motion control. The most
common approaches are of type: movement at
resolved velocity, movement at resolved
acceleration and movement by resolved force.
Resolved motion technique controls the position of
the end effector of robot arm in Cartesian space
“Task space” by combining the movements of
several joints, this type of diagrams can be as
following: the velocities calculated at the joints are
used directly as a set point for the control loops of
each joint, or in the form of a dynamic diagram,
when the diagram uses the dynamic model to
decouple the joints. Its main drawback is the use of
the inverse Jacobian matrix, which can become
singular under certain conditions.
3.1.3 Non-linear decoupling control
This technique is also known as dynamic control
or calculated torque. When the application requires
rapid development with dynamic constraints, the
command must take into account the forces of
interaction. This type of technique considers all of
the joints and for decouple them, uses the theory of
non-linear decoupling. This theory uses the
dynamic model of the robot for calculating the
control law, which leads to non-linear centralized
control laws. Anticipation signals can be used to
minimize non-linear effects (Er, 1993). This type of
technique allows the command in the articular space
or in the Cartesian space, with the advantage the
joints are decoupled and can move at high speeds
with strong inertias. This method strongly depends
on the system model; it is very sensitive to model
inaccuracies which lead to decoupling imperfect.
3.1.4 Control Lyapunov function
Methods based on a Lyapunov function have
been used for the control of the manipulator arms in
order to follow-up tasks. Particularly when the goal
is to try to guarantee asymptotic convergence and
not to linearize the system or to obtain decoupling
(Sontag, 1999).
3.1.5 Passive control
This technique considers a robot as a passive
system, i.e. a system that dissipates energy. Such
control laws allow modification the robot’s natural
energy to be able to execute the task. Using
91
formalism of Hamilton, the control seeks to
minimize the energy of the system by using a
passive nonlinear block in the return loop. Passive
control tends to be more robust than non-linear
decoupling, when the technique does not seek to
cancel nonlinearities (Li & al, 2018).
3.1.6 Adaptive control
This type of technique aims to correct
deficiencies in decoupling control nonlinear, such
as
approximate knowledge of the parameters of the
robot model or to adapt to different operating
conditions (Deng & al, 2020). This kind of
diagrams seeks to estimate or adjust online the
values of the parameters used in the calculation of
the control law. One of the most interesting works
on this subject is the command offered by called
Slotine-Li command or command adaptive passive
(Slotine, 1987). The advantages of this type of
technique are obvious, unfortunately the computing
power required from the system present a big issue.
3.1.7 Predictive control
This type of diagram uses the system model and
set points to be capable to predict its evolution,
where it is able to act according to the prediction
error. Three different schemes are proposed in
(Hedjar, 2002), the advantage of this type of
approach is linked to the fact that the prediction
error is not contaminated by measurement noises,
where the dependence on the model remains strong.
3.1.8 Robust control
In the case of fixed parameters, it is known that
the nonlinear decoupling technique can become
unstable in the presence of uncertainties. If the
parameters of the model are not known precisely
and if the uncertainty on the parameters admits
known bounds, then robust control techniques can
be used. The work of Slotine (Slotine, 1985)
considers the technique of modes sliding, also
called variable structure command. This technique
uses a sliding surface where the system’s stability is
guaranteed.
3.2 Control in task space
Executing a robotic task often requires an
interaction between the manipulator and its
workspace. Typical examples can be seen in
automotive industry as painting, welding,
assembling, etc. During the interaction, the
workspace of a robot arm somehow imposes certain
constraints on the trajectories that the robot tool can
track. Therefore, the use of position controls like
those described before is not possible unless the tool
path is planned precisely, and the control ensures a
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021

perfect follow-up of this trajectory. To achieve The implementation of the simulation process in
these two objectives, it is essential to have a precise MATLAB Simulink requires, first of all, calculating
analysis model of the robot arm, also concerning the the dynamic model for the robot, the dynamic
workspace (geometry and mechanical charac- model will be expressed in symbolic function in
teristics). It is clear that the second constraint can be MATLAB Simulink.
encountered very rarely, where it is necessary to
implement controls that are not "pure" controls in
position. In this section, we will present two main
types of these controls (Khalil & al, 2002).
3.2.1 Impedance control
A control strategy that ensures that the robot is
subjected to an external force, in which the relation
between this effort and the effector's position is
controlled, this strategy consists in regulating the
robot which behaves like a mechanical system of
variable Z impedance depending on the different
phases of the task. In general, we assume the robot
is equivalent to a second order mass , spring ,
shock absorber system (Paul, 1981).
3.2.2. Hybrid position/ force control
It consists of effort and position set points Fig.3 Structure of the 6 DOF robotic arm
simultaneously, defined according to the following
4.1 4.1. Open-loop simulation
rule: the directions which are contrary in position
are controlled in force, while those which are 4.1.1. Open-loop simulation result for 6 DOF
constrained in force are controlled in position or Figure 4 presents blocks of Simulink scheme for
velocity. Hybrid control schemes thus reveal two 6 degrees of freedom. The block diagram Simulink
loops parallel, one for the position, the other for the describes (1), where the first block tau includes the
force. Because each articulation contributes both to torque vectors for six joints, and by adding Coriolis
the achievement of position control and force vector C and viscous friction vectors and gravity
control, the outputs of these loops are summed vector. We can calculate the elements of the inertia
before being sent to the robot in the form of a global matrix A and the acceleration vector.
control vector. The implementation of this synthesis
requires the determination the forward dynamic
model of the robot arm i.e. obtaining accelerations
as a function of articulated torques. Its elements are
calculated by the dynamic equations of Lagrange.
4 SIMULATION OF THE SIX DOF
(AXES) ARTICULATED ROBOT
ARM – CASE STUDY
It is well known that simulation of the
manipulator arm is based on the mechanical
parameters calculated by the dynamic analysis Fig.4 Block diagram of Simulink software for the
modeling, where the exact mathematical model can dynamic model
guarantee the exact results for the simulation The simulation was not completed due to the
(Straka & al, 2014). MATLAB Simulink software dynamic model of six degrees of freedom which is
presents a powerful tool to build a virtual simulation larger regarding the calculations of its parameters in
by transforming each mathematical equation in symbolic function, where the simulation takes a
block function. The case study presented in this large time (2 days to execute 1% of the results).
article is about simulation of a six axes manipulator Therefore, in this article, we present the simulation
arm, the robot has six rotation joints and seven result for the three first joints (Waist-Shoulder-
links. Figure 3 shows the structure of the 6 DOF Elbow). The study will cover the behavior of the
robotic arm. robot model in open-loop and closed-loop using
PID controller.

92
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
In order to see the dynamic behavior of the
robot, we started by simulating each joint in open-
loop, as we mentioned before, because of the large
inertia matrix of the 6 DOF (degree of freedom)
robot dynamic model. We supposed that the joints
j4, j5, j6 (Forearm – Wrist pitch – Wrist roll) are
zero and neglecting Coriolis – gravity – viscous
friction vectors, in order to reduce the inertia matrix
and focus only on studying j1, j2, j3.
4.1.2. Open-loop simulation result for 3 DOF
The open-loop simulation for the three degrees
of freedom is done by giving the applied torques
constant values as "steps". Figure 5 shows the
Simulink diagram for 3 DOF open-loop.
The subsystem block shown in Figure 6 presents
the internal blocks of Simulink diagram presented
in Figure 5. The subsystem in Figure 6 calculates
the accelerations (j= 1..3) for the three joints
of the robot where the blocks scheme in Figure 5
calculates the position and the velocity.
Fig.5 Simulink diagram for 3 DOF open-loop
Fig.6 Internal blocks of the subsystem
93
In open-loop simulation, we supposed that we
know the torque value for each joint, and we
implement the inverse dynamic model to calculate
the acceleration.
As shown in Figure 6, each joint block is a
function that describes the mechanical property of
that joint, it is an element from the A inertia matrix
presented in (1), the signal output is an acceleration
or , entering signal in an integrator, we
can calculate the velocity or and by integrating
the velocity signal, we get the position .
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate respectively, the
positions and velocities executed by all three first
joints. From the curves in Figure 6, we notice that
the joints operate abruptly, where the joints exceed
their limits angle, they vary in an amplitude range [-
5 - 8 rad] while for velocities in Figure 7, the
velocity for three joints vary within a range of [-1 -
5 rad/s] at most.
Fig.7 Tracking the positions for the three joints in
open-loop
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
Fig.8 Tracking the velocities for the three joints in
open-loop
4.2 Closed-loop simulation
The closed-loop simulation requires the
implementation of one of the command synthesis
seen previously, that calculates the joint torques in
order to adjust the necessary positions and
velocities, to find the optimal location for the robot
arm taking into consideration its desired set points
are obtained by planning a desired trajectory
(Benotsmane & al, 2018). We will simulate the first
three joints of the model to observe and ensure the
efficiency of the command synthesis of PID
controller.
4.2.1 Simulation using PID controller
The dynamic model of the robot arm describes a
system of n differential equations of the second
order which is nonlinear and coupled, n being the
number of joints. In classical control, the robot
mechanism is considered as a linear system, and
each of the joints is controlled by a decentralized
control type PID with constant gains, its advantages
are: the ease of implementation and the low
calculation cost; in return the temporal response of
the robot varying according to its configuration, set
point overruns, and poor accuracy are observed
tracking in rapid movements. In many applications,
these drawbacks do not represent issue in practice.
Such a command is carried out according to the
scheme in Figure 9 [1].
94
Fig.9 Structure of PID controller [1]
The control equation is given as follow:
(7)
Where:
- and denote the desired position and
velocity vectors in the joint space.
- , and are positive definite diagonal
matrices of dimension (n × n), of generic
elements respectively the proportional
derived from and integral gains.
The calculation of the gains , , is
carried out by considering the model of the joint j
represented by the second order linear system with
coefficients constants as follow:
(8)
Where:
- = , denotes the maximum value of the
element of the robot's inertia matrix.
- represents the viscous friction and
represents a disturbing torque.
By neglecting , the closed-loop system transfer
function is given by:
(9)
Where, the characteristic equation is written:
(10)
The most common solution in robotics is to
choose the gains to get a real and negative triple
pole, which gives the fastest response possible
without oscillation. Therefore, the characteristic
equation is factored from the following way:
(11)
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021

Where: and a motion generator block in Figure 12 for each

- is chosen as large as possible, however, this joint.
pulsation should not be greater than the resonance
pulsation of the mechanical system in order to
not destabilize the system, the value
represents a good compromise with
rad/s, therefore we have rad/s [1]. Fig.11 PID regulator for a specific joint
Finally, we deduce the gains by the following
relationships:

(12)

Regulator gains for each joint are calculated by

the relationships Eq 12, the elements of the inertia
matrix ( , , , , , ) are taken
from the dynamic model (Inertia matrix).
The simulation of the dynamic model of six
joints either closed or open-loop has not finished,
because the calculation time is large, where 1%
every two days. Therefore, we continued analyzing
the simulation for the first three degrees of freedom.
4.2.2 PID control of the robot arm for 3 DOF
As we mentioned earlier in (1) and (2), the
inverse dynamic model of the robot arm is written:
(13)
Where the forward model is the following:
(14)
By neglecting some parameters as:
we define the parameters of the dynamic model
of a manipulator arm for 3 degree of freedom by the
computation of the matrices A, C, H.
Figure 10 shows the general Simulink diagram
in closed-loop control PID of 3 degrees of freedom.
Fig.12 Generator motion block
4.3 Simulation results of closed-loop
simulation with PID controller
Figures 13 and 14 represent the results obtained
by the simulation in MATLAB Simulink. Where
Figure 13 presents the desired position given for the
robot as input and the executed position by the
robot as output, and Figure 14 presents the desired
velocities for each joint as well as the executed
velocities by the robot.
From 14 we see that the good servo tracking for
the first and second joints unlike the third joint
which has an overshoot before tracking the desired
curve , this effect is caused due to the system
instability in the first period ‘transitional phase’.

Fig.13 Comparison of the desired and the executed

Fig.10 Simulink diagram for 3 DOF open-loop positions for the three joints

The block diagram of Simulink software in Figure

10 includes a regulator block illustrated in Figure 11
95
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
Fig.14 Comparison of the desired and the executed
velocities for the three joints
From Figure 14, we note that the curves of the
second and third joints include a large overshoot in
transitional phase, unlike the first joint which
spreads in this phase by an undershoot, which
represents the limits of instability.
Figure 15 presents the tracking error of the
position between the desired input and the output
executed by each joint, where we observe that the
tracking error for each joint converges in a range of
[-0.02 - 0, 0.02 rad] in range time [2 – 13 s], then it
tends towards zero to guarantee us stability.
Fig.15 The tracking error of the position and the
velocity for the three joints
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Nowadays, the optimal operation of industrial
robots has important role in the conception of
Industry 4.0. Therefore, the study is important and
up-to-date.
96
In the first part of the article the most important
methodologies, theoretical techniques relating to
controlling of industrial robots were described.
In the second part of the article a case study was
introduced for controlling of a 6 axes manipulator
arm using the classical PID controller. In the case
study open-loop and closed-loop simulation of the
investigated manipulator arm using PID controller
was carried out. In industry the robots can behave as
linear systems. The implementation of PID
controller presents an efficient control of the linear
systems. Simulation tests were achieved by the
application of the MATLAB Simulink software in
order to control position and velocity of different
joints of the investigated robot arm using PID
controller. The results of the simulation providing
the positions and velocities of the joints, which are
closer to the desired set points, though the presence
of overrun for some periods.
The main contribution of the article is that it was
confirmed in the case study – based on compared
results of open-loop and closed-loop simulations –
that the method applied in the study is efficient and
provides the desired trajectory of the robot arm.
6 REFERENCES
Khalil, W., Dombre, E. (2002). Modeling,
Identification and Control of Robots. Taylor and
Francis, New York. ISBN: 978-1-56032-983-1.
Xu, Y., Cao, X. (2019). The key technologies for
embedded systems in mechanical assembly robots.
Academic Journal of Manufacturing Engineering,
17(4), pp 191-198.
Benotsmane, R., Kovács, G., Dudás, L. (2019).
Economic, social impacts and operation of smart
factories in Industry 4.0 focusing on simulation and
Artificial Intelligence of collaborating robots. Social
Sciences, 143(8), pp 1-22.
Kostal, P., Kiss, I., Kerak, P. (2011). The intelligent
fixture at flexible manufacturing. Annals of the
faculty of Engineering Hunedoara – International
Journal of Engineering 2011, 9(1), pp 197-200.
Dima, I. C., Kot, S. (2013). Capacity of Production.
Industrial Production Management in Flexible
Manufacturing Systems. Book News, USA.
Yildirim, C., Sevil Oflaç, B., Yurt, O. (2018). The
doer effect of failure and recovery in multi-agent
cases: service supply chain perspective. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, 28(3), pp 274-297.
Jankowski, K. (2004). Inverse Dynamics Control in
Robotics Applications. Trafford Publishing,
Canada. ISBN: 978-1-41204-139-3.
Hong, X., Mitchell, R. J., Chen, S., Harris, C. J., Li,
K., Irwin, G. W. (2008). Model selection
approaches for non-linear system identification: a
review. International Journal of Systems Science,
 ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, VOL.19, ISSUE 1/2021
39(10), pp 925-946. DOI:
10.1080/00207720802083018.
Chau, T. (2013). Robust Control Methods for
Nonlinear Systems with Uncertain Dynamics and
Unknown Control Direction. Dissertations and
Theses, p 153.
Pratt, J., Krupp, B., Morse, C. (2002). Series elastic
actuators for high fidelity force control. Industrial
Robot: An International Journal, 29, pp 234-241.
DOI: 10.1108/01439910210425522.
Romanelli, F. (2011) Advanced methods for robot-
environment interaction towards an industrial robot
aware of its volume. Journal of Robotics, 1, pp 1-12
Fadali, M. S., Visioli, A. (2013). Introduction to
Digital Control, Digital Control Engineering, 2nd
Edition. ISBN: 9780123983244.
Khalil, W., Dombre, E. (2007). Robot
Manipulators: Modeling, Performance Analysis and
Control, Wiley-ISTE, New York. ISBN: 978-1-905-
20910-1.
Cattafesta, L., Williams, D., Rowley, C., Alvi, F.
(2003). Review of active control of flow-induced
cavity resonance. 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference and Exhibit.
Muhammad, B., Nouman, A., Khan, M., Mughal,
Awais. (2018). Design and control of 6 DOF robotic
manipulator, Thesis for: Bachelor of Mechatronics
and Control Engineering. DOI: 10.13140/
RG.2.2.28474.85440.
De Wit, C.C, Siciliano, B., Bastin, G. (1996).
Theory of Robot Control. Communications and
Control Engineering, Springer, London. ISBN:
978-1-4471-1503-8.
Gorla, B., Renaud, M. (1984). Modèles des robots
manipulateurs: Application à leur commande.
Capadues Editions.
Whitney, D. (1969). Resolved motion rate control
of manipulators and human prostheses. IEEE
Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 10(2), pp
47-53. DOI: 10.1109/TMMS.1969.299896.
Er, M. J. (1993). Recent developments and
futuristic trends in robot manipulator control.
97
Proceedings 1993 Asia-Pacific Workshop on
Advances in Motion Control, Singapore. DOI:
10.1109/APWAM.1993. 316198.
Sontag, E. D. (1999). Control-Lyapunov
functions. Springer, London. ISBN: 978-1-4471-
0807-8.
7 Li, C., Zhang, Z., Xia, G., Xie, X., Zhu, Q.
(2018). Efficient force control learning system
for industrial robots based on variable
impedance control. SENSORS, 18(8). DOI:
10.3390/S18082539.
Deng, Z., Zhu, H., Lin, S. (2020). Adaptive sliding
mode control method for reconfigurable modular
robots under dynamic constraints. Academic
Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, 18(1), pp
16-20.
Slotine, J., Li, W. (1987). Adaptive strategies in
constrained manipulation. Proceedings. 1987 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 4, pp 595-601. DOI:10.1109/ROBOT.
1987.1087869.
Hedjar, R., Toumi, R., Boucher, P., Dumur, D.
(2002). Feedback nonlinear predictive control of
rigid link robot manipulators. American Control
Conference, Anchorage, Alaska.
Slotine, J. JE. (1985). The robust control of robot
manipulators. The International Journal of Robotics
Research, 4(2), pp 49-64. DOI: 10.1177/027836498
500400205.
Paul, R. (1981). Robot Manipulators: Mathematics,
Programming and Control. MIT Press. ISBN-
10: 9780262160827
Straka, M., Žatkovič, E., Schréter, R. (2014).
Simulation as a means of activity streamlining of
continuously and discrete production in specific
enterprise. Acta logistica, 1(3), pp. 11-16.
Benotsmane, R., Kacemi, S., Benachenhou, M.R.
(2018). Calculation methodology for trajectory
planning of a 6 axis manipulator arm. ANNALS of
Faculty Engineering Hunedoara – International
Journal of Engineering, 3(3), pp 27-32.