machines

Article
MPC Control and LQ Optimal Control of A Two-Link
Robot Arm: A Comparative Study†
El-Hadi Guechi 1, *, Samir Bouzoualegh 1 , Youcef Zennir 1 and Sašo Blažič 2
1 Laboratoire d’Automatique de Skikda (LAS), Faculté de Technologie, Département de Génie Électrique,
Université 20 Août 1955, BP 26, Route El-Hadaeik, Skikda 21000, Algeria;
[email protected] (S.B.); [email protected] (Y.Z.)
2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering Tržaška 25, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† This paper is an extended version of our paper, Model predictive control of a two-link robot arm, published
in the Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advanced Systems and Electric Technologies
(IC_ASET), Hammamet, Tunisia, 22–25 March 2018; pp. 409–414.




Received: 6 July 2018; Accepted: 14 August 2018; Published: 17 August 2018


Abstract: This study examined the control of a planar two-link robot arm. The control approach
design was based on the dynamic model of the robot. The mathematical model of the system was
nonlinear, and thus a feedback linearization control was first proposed to obtain a linear system for
which a model predictive control (MPC) was developed. The MPC control parameters were obtained
analytically by minimizing a cost function. In addition, a simulation study was done comparing
the proposed MPC control approach, the linear quadratic (LQ) control based on the same feedback
linearization, and a control approach proposed in the literature for the same problem. The results
showed the efficiency of the proposed method.

Keywords: two-link robot arm; dynamic model; nonlinear control; MPC control; linear quadratic
optimal control

1. Introduction
In recent years, the control of manipulator robots has been the subject of much research, due to
the robots’ increasingly frequent use in dangerous or inaccessible environments, where human beings
can hardly intervene [1,2]. These robot models are highly nonlinear which makes the control strategy
very difficult. Several approaches to controlling manipulator robots are proposed in the literature.
In [3], a robust control for a manipulator robot with two degrees of freedom was developed to take
into account the uncertainties in the electrohydraulic servo systems. In [4], a robust control approach
that allowed for friction in the model was developed to control a manipulator robot with two degrees
of freedom. In [5], a coordinated fuzzy control approach was developed for a manipulator robot with
actuator hysteresis and motion constraints. In addition, to reduce the harmful effects from unknown
nonlinearities, an adaptive control scheme was introduced. In [6], a feed-forward neural network was
developed to find a solution to the inverse kinematics problem of a planar manipulator robot with three
degrees of freedom needed for generating desired trajectories in Cartesian space. In [7], a hybrid control
approach for a three-link robot arm was developed. The proposed strategy of control was composed
of two controllers: an independent joint controller, designed in the configuration space, and a sliding
mode controller that enforced desired dynamics for the tracking error projections onto the Frenet-Serret
frame. In [8], a robust control approach with constraints for an industrial robot manipulator was
developed. First, the trajectory was generated, then a control based on the optimization concept was

Machines 2018, 6, 37; doi:10.3390/machines6030037 www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2018, 6, 37 2 of 14

determined to follow the generated trajectory. In [9], the control of a manipulator robot using unit dual
quaternions based on a kinematic model was developed. In [10], a tracking control approach using a
manipulator robot with six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) was proposed. In [11], a time-optimal trajectory
for robot systems was proposed using a convex optimization approach. In [12], a minimum-time
control approach of the Acrobot was developed. The control strategy consisted of using a direct search
algorithm for finding an optimal trajectory for the robot. In [13], an adaptive control was developed for
the robot arm with LQ performance. The dynamics of the robot were highly nonlinear and the robot
parameters were all assumed unavailable. In [14], a robust optimal adaptive sliding mode control
using a disturbance observer was developed and tested on the robot arm. The control gains were
adjusted on-line by the observer to compensate for the unknown time-varying disturbances.
In [15], three nonlinear predictive control approaches for controlling a planar two-link vertical
manipulator robot were developed: an adaptive nonlinear model predictive control (nMPC) approach,
a proportional–integral–derivative (PID)-based nMPC (PIDnMPC) approach, and a novel simplified
nMPC (SnMPC) approach. In [16], a nonlinear model predictive control of a manipulator robot
mounted on an unmanned satellite was proposed. This control consisted of two modules: a trajectory
planning module (based on a trajectory optimization algorithm) and a model predictive controller.
In [17], a comparative study between a generalized predictive control and a fuzzy supervisory control
of a flexible single-link robot arm was proposed. In [18], a model predictive control with constraints
of a flexible-link mechanism was developed. This control approach was tested on a four-link closed
loop planar mechanism lying on the horizontal plane driven by a torque-controlled electric actuator.
In [19], a nonlinear model predictive control of a free-flying space robot was developed and the
performance of the proposed control was compared with that of a sliding mode control. In [20],
a reactive constraint-based control approach was developed for controlling a mobile manipulator
so it could reach its goal and avoid unknown and unpredictable obstacles. The robot’s trajectory
was calculated on-line by using the model predictive method. In [21], a nonlinear predictive control
structure in real-time for the visual servoing of a manipulator robot was proposed. The proposed
control approach was designed to solve tasks assigned to robot manipulators with an eye-in-hand
configuration. In [22], a single-input neuronal generalized predictive control approach for controlling
a manipulator robot with six degrees of freedom was proposed. In [23], a model predictive control
with constraints of a flexible-link manipulator robot was proposed, in order to eliminate the problem
of vibration.
In contrast to the above-mentioned works, this paper presents a combination of a feedback
linearization control and an MPC control approach of a two-link robot arm. The control approach
design was based on the dynamic model of the robot. Since the model of the robot was nonlinear,
a feedback linearization control was developed in the first step to obtain a linear system connecting
so-called synthetic control signals to the respective joint angles. Next, based on the obtained linear
model, a model predictive control approach was developed. The proposed solution was therefore a
type of nonlinear cascade controller that was very easy to tune. In order to show the efficiency of the
proposed approach, a comparative study was performed with the LQ optimal control approach and a
control approach proposed in the literature for the two-link robot arm.
This paper is organized as follows. First, in Section 2, a description of the planar two-link robot
arm is provided, along with its dynamic model. Then, in Section 3, the control approach for controlling
the robot from an initial configuration to the final configuration using an MPC approach is presented.
A linear quadratic optimal control approach is developed and the comparative study is addressed in
Section 4. Finally, simulation results are presented in Section 5.

2. Dynamic Model
A planar two-link robot arm can be presented as depicted in Figure 1, where θi , Li ,
and Mi {i = 1, 2} are respectively the joint angle, the length, and the mass of the first link (i = 1)
and the second link (i = 2). The gravitational acceleration is denoted by g.
Machines 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

 x = L1 sin (1 ) + L2 sin (1 + 2 )


 . (1)
Machines 2018, 6, 37  y = L1 cos (1 ) + L2 cos (1 + 2 )
 3 of 14

Figure 1. Two-link robot arm.

Figure 1. Two-link robot arm.
Taking into account Equation (1), the total kinetic energy of the two-link robot arm is given by
the following Equation
The calculation (2): dynamic model of this robot is based on the kinetic and potential energies.
of the
The tip of the second link is computed
1 using the direct 1 geometric model (DGM) as:
E = ( M1 + M 2 ) L1212 + M 2 L2212 + M 2 L221 2 +
2 2 , (2)
(
x = L sin ( ) + L2 sin ( θ1 + θ2 )
( )
1 θ
( )
1 1
M 2 L22y22=+ L L1 L(2 θ )1+
M 2cos +  2
cos
2 L 1cos( θ +  2 θ )
. (1)
2 1 1 2 1 2

and the potential

Taking energy Equation
into account is given by
(1),the
thefollowing Equation
total kinetic energy(3):
of the two-link robot arm is given by the
following Equation (2): U = M1 gL1 cos (1 ) +
. (3)
( ( ) (
M g L cos .2 + L2 cos2 . 21 + 2
E = 12 ( M1 2+ M12 ) L21 θ11+ 12 M
))
2
. .
2 L2θ 1 + M2 L2 θ 1 θ 2 +
.2 . . .2 , (2)
To find the robot motion
1 equations,
2 we use the formalism of Lagrange:
2 M2 L2 θ 2 + M2 L1 L2 θ 1 θ 2 + θ 1 cos( θ2 )
L = E −U . (4)
and the potential energy is given by the following Equation (3):
With Lagrangian L, we can solve the Euler-Lagrange equation which relies on the partial
derivative of kinetic and
U = potential
M1 gL1 cosenergies
(θ1 ) + Mof mechanical systems to compute the equations (3)
of
2 g ( L1 cos( θ1 ) + L2 cos( θ1 + θ2 )) .
motion, defined as follows:
To find the robot motion equations, we use the formalism of Lagrange:
d  L  L
=  − , (5)
dt
L=  Ei− U.i (4)

 =  1 L,2 weare
T
whereWith
L and
Lagrangian canrespectively the Lagrangian
solve the Euler-Lagrange of the which
equation motionrelies
and on
thethe
torque vector.
partial derivative
Developing
of kinetic Equation
and potential (5), the
energies of dynamic
mechanical model
systemsof atorobotic
compute arm
thewith two degrees
equations of freedom
of motion, defined
(DOF) can be rewritten in the following form [24]: !
as follows:
d ∂L
( )
∂L
 M (τ =
) dt
+ C  .,  +−G∂θ(i), =  (5)
 ∂θ i , (6)
h iT Y = 
where L and τ = τ1 τ2 are respectively the Lagrangian of the motion and the torque vector.
where:Developing Equation (5), the dynamic model of a robotic arm with two degrees of freedom (DOF)
 = 1 in2 theisfollowing
can •be rewritten
T
the vectorform
of joint
[24]:variables;
•  =  1  2 
T
is the vector(of applied .. torques
 . (control input);
M (θ )θ + C θ, θ + G (θ ) = τ
• Y is the output vector; , (6)
Y=θ
− ( M1 + M 2 ) gL1 sin (1 ) − M 2 gL2 sin (1 + 2 )
• G ( ) =   is a vector of gravity torques;
where:  −M 2 gL2 sin (1 + 2 ) 
h iT
• θ = θ1 θ2 is the vector of joint variables;
h iT
• τ = τ1 τ2 is the vector of applied torques (control input);
Machines 2018, 6, 37 4 of 14

• Y is the output vector;

" #
−( M1 + M2 ) gL1 sin(θ1 ) − M2 gL2 sin(θ1 + θ2 )
• G (θ ) = is a vector of gravity torques;
− M2 gL2 sin(θ1 + θ2 )
  . . .2
 
 . − M2 L1 L2 2θ 1 θ 2 + θ 1 sin(θ2 )
• C θ, θ =  . .
 represents the vector of Coriolis and
− M2 L1 L2 θ 1 θ 2 sin(θ2 )
centrifugal forces;
" #
D1 D2
• M(θ ) = is the inertia matrix with the following elements:
D3 D4

D1 = ( M1 + M2 ) L21 + M2 L22 + 2M2 L1 L2 cos(θ2 )

D2 = M2 L22 + M2 L1 L2 cos(θ2 )
D3 = D2
D4 = M2 L22

3. Controller Design
In this section, the development of a predictive control of a robotic arm with two DOF is presented.
In that regard, we consider the nonlinear dynamic model given by Equation (6) that is also multivariable
(with two control inputs and two controlled outputs). Although it is possible to design the nonlinear
controllers for such systems directly, we here propose a two-step design where a feedback linearization
control is developed first to make the system linear. Once the linear model was obtained, a model
predictive control is designed in the next step. The final implementation of the controller can be seen
as nonlinear multivariable cascade controller.

3.1. Feedback Linearization Control

The main idea of this technique is to transform the nonlinear dynamics of the system to a
completely or partially linear one, so that linear control approaches can be applied to stabilize it [25,26].
In this study, the control approach with feedback linearization was developed for a dynamic model of
the two-link robot arm given by Equation (6). In order to do so, the authors differentiated the output Y
until the control input τ appeared. In this case, the control input τ appeared in the second derivative
of the output Y. This implied that the relative degree of the system was two. The second derivative of
Y can be derived from Equation (6) and is given as:
.. ..   . 
Y = θ = M(θ )−1 −C θ, θ − G (θ ) + τ = v, (7)

h iT
where v = v1 v2 is a synthetic control vector to this linear double-integrator system. Next, they
had to find the relation between the synthetic control and the actual control torque. This feedback
linearization control law is obtained from Equation (7) and is given by:
 .
τ = M(θ )v + C θ, θ + G (θ ) (8)

Applying the control law given by Equation (8) to the nonlinear system given by Equation (6),
the dynamic model of the manipulator robot with two DOF, becomes a linear double-integrator system.
The relative degree was equal to two. This meant that by using the control law Equation (8), a complete
linearization of the nonlinear system Equation (6) was achieved and a linear system for each joint
variable was obtained. These two linear systems can be described in the transfer-function form:

θ1 ( s ) 1 θ (s) 1
= 2 and 2 = 2, (9)
v1 ( s ) s v2 ( s ) s
Machines 2018, 6, 37 5 of 14

where s denotes the independent variable of the Laplace transform.

Based on the feedback linearization given in this subsection, a model predictive control for the
two-link robot arm was developed, which is the goal of the next subsection.

3.2. Model Predictive Control

In the case of a robot arm with two DOF and after application of the feedback linearization
Equation (8) to the nonlinear system (6), the authors obtained the following two decoupled linear
systems: ( ..
θ 1 = v1
.. . (10)
θ 2 = v2
The system (10) can be easily stabilized by using a proportional–derivative (PD) controller given
by the following Equation (11):
 . . 
 v1 = k1 (θ1d − θ1 ) + k2 θ 1d − θ 1
. .  (11)
 v2 = k1 (θ2d − θ2 ) + k2 θ 2d − θ 2

h iT
where θ1d θ2d is a vector of the desired joint variables. Note that the PD controller’s gain
is infinite at high frequencies, which makes it physically not realizable. To limit the gain at high
frequencies, the PD controller is usually implemented as a phase lead compensator or some other
filtering technique is applied.
The closed loop system exhibits the behavior of a second order system. The gains k1 and k2 can be
chosen as:
k1 = w02 and k2 = 2ζw0 , (12)

where w0 is a natural frequency and ζ is a damping factor.

Using the gains given by Equation (12), we obtain a large field of the second order system poles.
The objective of the proposed MPC control is to select a part of this domain that optimized the cost
function. This last proposal will be defined and detailed later.
Now, we will develop an MPC controller (see [27–29]) for the first link of the robot arm. The MPC
controller for the second link of the robot arm will be developed in the same way as the first.
Assuming v1 (t) = v1 is constant in the time interval [t, t + h], where h is the horizon time of the
prediction, and using Equation (10), the following prediction model is obtained [30]:
( . .
θ 1 ( t + h ) = v1 h + θ 1 ( t )
. (13)
θ1 (t + h) = 12 v1 h2 + θ 1 (t)h + θ1 (t)

Next, given the reference angle of the first link θ1d (constant), the proposed one-horizon time
quadratic cost function for stabilizing the system is defined by:
.2
J = e12 (t + h) + ρe1 (t + h), (14)

. .
where e1 (t + h) = θ1d − θ1 (t + h) is the predicted angle error, and e1 (t + h) = 0 − θ 1 (t + h) is the
predicted velocity error. The horizon time h and the weight ρ are both positive real constants (control
parameters) to be determined later. The criterion J is completed by introducing the prediction model
(13) into (14). The idea of the proposed control law is to find the constant v1 that minimizes the criterion
∂J
J. This is done by choosing v1 that makes the partial derivative ∂v equal to 0. The obtained solution
1

.
v1 = k1 (θ1d − θ1 (t)) − k2 θ 1 (t), (15)
Machines 2018, 6, 37 6 of 14

Machines
with the2018, 6, x FOR
control PEER
gains REVIEW
given by 6 of 14

is not constant in the time interval t , t + h2 as assumed2h initially,

2 + 4ρ but the proposed control law was
k1 = 2 and k2 = 3 , (16)
h + 4ρ a more general
nonetheless based on this solution. In addition, h + 4ρh control law is obtained if the reference
value for the angle is allowed to change. Furthermore, the feed-forward and the feed-back gains that are
isnot
not constant constant
necessarily in the time
areinterval t + h] as assumed
assumed.[t,Therefore, the following initially,
control butlaw
theisproposed
proposed:control law was
nonetheless based on this solution. In addition, a more general control law is obtained if the reference
value for the angle is allowed to change. k1 (1d ( t ) − 1 (the
v1 ( t ) =Furthermore, t ) ) −feed-forward
k21 ( t ) . and the feed-back gains (17)
that
are not necessarily constant are assumed. Therefore, the following control law is proposed:
The block diagram of the closed-loop system can be presented as depicted in Figure 2, where
.
1d and 2d are respectively the v (reference
t) = k (θ joint (t) − angle
θ (t)) of−the k θfirst
2 1(t).and the second link of the robot.
(17)
1 1 1d 1
As the feedback linearization completely decouples the control of the first and the second joint (see
The block
Equation (15)),diagram of parameters
different the closed-loopcan system
in general can be presented
used for both as depicted
controlinloops.
FigureHowever,
2, where θthe
1d
and θ2d are
authors respectively
chose to use thethe
samereference joint
controller forangle of the first
the second jointandas thetheone second link offor
proposed thethe
robot. As the
first joint:
feedback linearization completely decouples the control of the first and the second joint (see Equation
v2 ( t ) = k1 ( 2 d ( t ) −  2 ( t ) ) − k2 2 ( t ) . (18)
(15)), different parameters can in general be used for both control loops. However, the authors chose to
use the same controller for the second joint as the one proposed for
Concerning the system response, the control goal was that the joint angles follow their the first joint:
references with dynamics of the second order system given . by the following transfer function

( )
v2 (t) = k1 (θ2d (t) − θ2 (t)) − k2 θ 2 (t). (18)
w0 s + 2 w0 s + w0 , where  is a damping factor and w0 is a natural frequency.
2 2 2

Figure2.2.Closed-loop
Figure Closed-loopsystem
system(model
(modelpredictive
predictivecontrol).
control).

Using the MPC

Concerning controller
the system given by
response, theEquation
control (15)goal to wasstabilize thejoint
that the system (10),follow
angles the transfer
their
function of the whole closed-loop is given by:
references with dynamics of the second order system given by the following transfer function
w02 / s2 + 2ζw0 s + w02 , where ζ is a damping


1 ( sfactor
) and w0 is a natural frequency.
k1
Using the MPC controller given by Equation (15) = . the system (10), the transfer function
to stabilize (19)
1d ( s ) s 2 + k2 s + k1
of the whole closed-loop is given by:
Taking into account Equations (16) and (19) and the dynamics of the second order system, the
θ1 ( s ) k1
following is obtained: = 2 . (19)
θ1d (s) s + k2 s + k1
2h 2 + 4 
Taking into account Equations (16) and (19)2  w =and . (20)
h3 +the
4  hdynamics of the second order system, the
0

following is obtained:
2h22+ 4ρ
0 0== 32
2
2ζww .. (20)
(21)
hh + 
+ 44ρh
From Equation (21), the weight factorwis:2 = 2
0 . (21)
h2 + 4ρ
2 − ( w0 h )
2

= . (22)
4w02

Substituting Equation (22) into Equation (20), he following second order equation is obtained:

w02 h2 − 4 w0 h + 2 = 0 , (23)

where h is the variable to look for. Bu writing

Machines 2018, 6, 37 7 of 14

From Equation (21), the weight factor is:

2 − ( w0 h ) 2
ρ= . (22)
4w02

Substituting Equation (22) into Equation (20), he following second order equation is obtained:

w02 h2 − 4ζw0 h + 2 = 0, (23)

where h is the variable to look for. Bu writing

w0 h = λ, (24)

Equation (23) becomes:

λ2 − 4ζλ + 2 = 0. (25)

The solutions, q
λ1,2 = 2ζ ± 4ζ 2 − 2, (26)
√
are real if and only if 4ζ 2 − 2 ≥ 0 ⇔ ζ ≥ 2/2 .
To obtain a positive weight factor ρ, from Equation (22), λ21,2 < 2 is required:
q
2(4ζ 2 − 2) ± 4ζ 4ζ 2 − 2 < 0. (27)

It was known that 4ζ 2 − 2 ≥ 0 (for real solutions) and, therefore, a larger solution would never
satisfy this inequality. Therefore, only the smaller solution was kept. It was very easy to verify
that outcome: q
2(4ζ 2 − 2) − ζ 4ζ 2 − 2 < 0. (28)

After choosing a design parameter ζ = 0.9 and selecting an appropriate natural frequency w0 ,
the authors determine the parameter h from Equations (24) and (26). With the horizon time defined,
they used Equation (22) to determine the weight factor ρ. The closed-loop performance of the system
was computed for each selected value of the natural frequency w0 . and the results are summarized in
Table 1 where:

• the natural frequency w0 is the chosen design parameter;

• the horizon time h and the weight factor ρ are obtained using the above described procedure;
Minτi {i = 1, 2} and Maxτi {i = 1, 2} are the minimum and the maximum of the respective
θi
applied torques; the settling time tr± 5% {i = 1, 2} corresponds to the times needed for the joint
angles to settle within the band (±5%) of the final value;
• Dθi {i = 1, 2} are the overshoots of the joint angles (in %) when a step change is applied to its
reference;
• and i ∈ {1, 2} is the index of the joint.

Table 1. System performance for different values of natural frequency.

w0 Min τ1 Max τ1 Min τ2 Max τ2 trθ±

1
trθ±
2
h (s) ρ 5% 5% Dθ1 (%) Dθ2 (%)
(rad/s) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm) (s) (s)
1 0.6864 0.3822 −20.21 26.28 −0.78 1.43 4.86 4.86 0.5 0.5
2 0.3432 0.0955 −22.20 45.14 −3.13 5.64 2.42 2.42 0.5 0.5
3.5 0.1961 0.0312 −33.33 96.97 −9.57 17.54 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5
4 0.1716 0.0239 −39.46 120.49 −12.56 22.92 1.22 1.22 0.5 0.5
Machines 2018, 6, 37 8 of 14

After analyzing Table 1, it was observed that the horizon time h had an influence on the variation
range of the control signals (robot torques): short horizon time implied a large variation range of the
robot torques.
To obtain an acceptable control signal range (max(|τi |) ≤ 100 Nm for i = {1, 2}) [24], the authors
chose the horizon time h = 0.1961 (s) and the weight factor ρ = 0.0312.

4. Linear Quadratic Optimal Control

As in Section 3.2, the linear system given by Equation (10) was considered to determine a linear
quadratic (LQ) optimal control [31–34] for the two-link robot arm.
The error ei between the actual angle θi and the desired angle θid is defined as:

ei = θid − θi i = 1, 2. (29)

The desired angle θid {i = 1, 2} is constant. Differentiating the Equation (29) twice, the following
equation is obtained:
.. ..
ei = θ i = −vi i = 1, 2 (30)

If a a single decoupled linear system is considered:

..
e1 = −v1 = v1∗ . (31)

The state space representation of the system (31) is given by:

( .
z = Az + Bv1∗
, (32)
ϑ = Cz

where:
h iT h .
iT
• z= z1 z2 = e1 e1 ∈ Rn is a state vector;
• ϑ ∈ Rm is the output vector;
• v1 is the synthetic control of the first joint of the robot;
" # " #
0 1 0 h i
• A= ,B= and C = 1 0 .
0 0 1

If the objective cost function is considered:

+∞
Z 
J= zT Qz + v1∗ T Rv1∗ dt, (33)
0

where:
" #
1 0
• Q= is a symmetric positive semi-definite matrix,
0 0
• and R is a positive constant.

The objective cost function is minimized using the following linear quadratic optimal control:

v1∗ = − R−1 BT P z(t), (34)

" #
P1 P2
where: P = is the solution to the following so-called Riccati Equation:
P2 P3

PA + AT P − PBR−1 BT P + Q = 0. (35)
Machines 2018, 6, 37 9 of 14

The solution of the Riccati Equation (35) is:

" √ √ √ #
24 R R
P= √ p √ . (36)
R 2R R

Therefore, the linear quadratic optimal control v1 = −v1∗ is given by the following control law:
.
v1 = R−1 ( P2 z1 (t) + P3 z2 (t)) = k1 e1 (t) + k2 e1 (t) (37)
√ p √
where k1 = R−1 R and k2 = R−1 2R R. Note that the control law for the second joint is obtained
following the same steps.
The block diagram of the closed-loop system resembled the one depicted in Figure 2—they only
differed in the leftmost box that implemented the MPC control Equation (17) in one case and the LQ
optimal control given by Equation (37) in the other.
Using the control law given by Equation (37), the system performance was computed for different
values of R and they are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. System performance for different values of R.

Min τ1 Max τ1 Min τ2 Max τ2 trθ±

1
trθ±
2
R 5% 5% Dθ1 (%) Dθ2 (%)
(Nm) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm) (s) (s)
1 −21.15 26.28 −1.21 1.76 6.19 6.19 13.56 13.56
1/100 −39.46 82.83 −12.21 17.80 1.96 1.96 13.56 13.56
1/150 −44.88 96.95 −14.75 21.48 1.78 1.78 13.56 13.56
1/200 −49.19 108.85 −17.09 25.03 1.64 1.64 13.56 13.56

Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the authors noticed that, using the proposed model predictive control
approach, a better system performance was obtained than by using the LQ optimal control approach.
Using an MPC control approach, a fast convergence of the joint variables to the desired angles was
obtained and the convergence was without overshooting. In addition, they noticed that by using
the MPC control and the LQ optimal control, a better system performance was obtained than by
using the PID control approach presented by David and Robles [24]. Furthermore, the mathematical
development of the proposed LQ optimal control approach was only valid in the case where the
desired angle was a constant or was ramp-like. The proposed MPC control approach, however, was
valid for any desired angle.

5. Simulation Results
In order to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed MPC controller, a simulation study and the
comparison with the LQ optimal control approach were performed. For each approach, the authors
selected the corresponding parameters so that the maximum torque was strictly less than and as close
as possible to 100 Nm. This last condition was met in the case of the LQ optimal control approach
for R = 1/150 with a max(|τ1 |) ' 97 Nm. The same condition was met in the case of the MPC control
approach for (h = 0.1961 (s) and ρ = 0.0312) with a max(|τ1 |) ' 97 Nm.
For simulation purposes, the authors assumed that the mass and the length of the first and the
second links of the robot arm were Mi=(1,2) = 1(kg) and Li=(1,2) = 1(m), respectively. The initial
and the desired orientations of the first and the second links of the robot arm were θ1 (0) = −π/2,
θ2 (0) = π/2, θ1d = π/2 and θ2d = −π/2, respectively. According to the selected parameters of the
two proposed approaches of control, the gains of the MPC controller were k1 = 12.25; k2 = 6.30,
and the gains of the LQ optimal controller were k1 = 12.24; k2 = 4.94.
Figure 3a represents the trajectory of the end effector of the robot arm with the final position
of both joints depicted. Figure 3b presents a zoom image of the end-effector of the robot in its final
variables and without overshooting.
Figure 5a and 5b show the comparison between the robot torques  2 and  1 , respectively, that
have been obtained, using the MPC control and the LQ optimal control. It is observed that by using the
MPC control approach, the energy consumption is lower than by using the LQ optimal control.
Figures 6a and 6b depict the robot synthetic controls v2 and v1 given by Equation (15). As can
MachinesMachines
2018, 6,2018,
37 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 10
14of 14
be seen, the synthetic controls reach zero when the end-effector of the robot reaches its objective.
Theobserved that theofMPC
convergence the control approach
joint-angle results
errors in a fast
e2 and andthe
e1 of asymptotic
two-linkconvergence
robot arm of both joint
towards zero
variables and without overshooting.
using the two proposed approaches of control are depicted in Figure 7a and 7b, respectively. to the
position. The trajectory (full line) computed using the MPC control is observed arriving directly
goal, unlikeFigure 5a and 5b show
the trajectory the comparison
(dotted-line) between
computed usingthethe
robot control. 2 and  1 , respectively, that
LQtorques
have been obtained, using the MPC control and the LQ optimal control. It is observed that by using the
2
MPC control approach, the energy
Finalconsumption
position of is lower
1.04than by using the LQ optimal control.
Trajectory of the
the end-effector
Figures 6a and 6b depict the robot synthetic controls v2 and v1 given by Equationend-effector,
(15). As can
1.02 using MPC control
1.5
be seen, the synthetic controls reach zero when the end-effector of the robot reaches its objective.
position with respect to Y-axis (m)

Trajectory of the 1

position with respect to Y-axis (m)

1
The convergence of the joint-angle errors e2 and
end-effector e1 of the two-link robot arm towards zero
Final position of the
using the two proposed approaches of control are depicted
0.98 in Figure 7a and 7b, respectively.end-effector
0.5
0.96
Iinitial position of
0 the end-effector Trajectory of the
2 Final position of 0.941.04 end-effector, Trajectory of the
the end-effector using LQ control end-effector,
-0.5 using MPC control
Robot base 0.921.02
1.5
position with respect to Y-axis (m)

-1 Trajectory of the 1

position with respect to Y-axis (m)

1 end-effector 0.9
Final position of the
0.98 end-effector
-1.5 0.88
0.5
0.96
Iinitial position of
-2 0 the end-effector Trajectory of the 0.995
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.985 0.99 1 1.005 1.01 1.015
0.94 end-effector,
position with respect to X-axis (m) position with respect to X-axis (m)
using LQ control
-0.5 (b)
(a)
Robot base 0.92

-1
Figure 3. (a) Final position: the robot end-effector reaches0.9its objective point; (b) Zoom image of the
Figure 3. (a) Final position: the robot end-effector reaches its objective point; (b) Zoom image of the
end-effector
-1.5 in its final position. 0.88
end-effector in its final position.
-2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.985 0.99 0.995 1 1.005 1.01 1.015
position with respect to X-axis (m) position with respect to X-axis (m)
Figure 4a,b represent
2
the comparison between the 2
convergence of the joint angles θ2 and θ1 , (a) (b)

respectively, to their reference values, using

Figure 3. (a) Final position: the robot the MPC control and thepoint;
end-effector reaches its objective
(LQ) LQ (b)
control. It is observed
Zoom image of the that
2
the MPC control 1.5approach
end-effector results
in its final in a fast and asymptotic
position. 1.5 convergence of both joint variables and
2 (MPC)
without overshooting.
2d 1 (LQ)
2 (LQ), 2 (MPC) and 2d (rad)

1 (LQ), 1 (MPC) and 1d (rad)

1 1
2 2 1 (MPC)
2 (LQ)
0.5 1.5 0.51.5 1d
2 (MPC)
2d 1 (LQ)
2 (LQ), 2 (MPC) and 2d (rad)

1 (LQ), 1 (MPC) and 1d (rad)

0 1 0 1
1 (MPC)

-0.5 0.5 -0.50.5

1d

0 0
-1 -1

-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-1 -1
-2 -2
0 5 10 0 5 10
-1.5 -1.5
time (s) time (s)
(a) (b)
-2 -2
0 5 10 0 5 10
Figure 4. Comparison between linear quadratic (LQ) and model predictive control (MPC) controls of
time (s) time (s)
a real and reference orientations: (a)(a)Real and the desired orientations of (b) the second link of the robot;
(b) Real and the desired orientations of the first link of the robot.
Figure 4. Comparison between linear quadratic (LQ) and model predictive control (MPC) controls of
Figure 4. Comparison between linear quadratic (LQ) and model predictive control (MPC) controls of a
a real and reference orientations: (a) Real and the desired orientations of the second link of the robot;
real and reference orientations: (a) Real and the desired orientations of the second link of the robot;
(b) Real and the desired orientations of the first link of the robot.
(b) Real and the desired orientations of the first link of the robot.

Figure 5a,b show the comparison between the robot torques τ2 and τ1 , respectively, that have
been obtained, using the MPC control and the LQ optimal control. It is observed that by using the
MPC control approach, the energy consumption is lower than by using the LQ optimal control.
 Machines 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Machines 2018, 6, 37 11 of 14

Machines 2018, 6,25

x FOR PEER REVIEW 100 11 of 14

2 (LQ) 1 (LQ)
20 2 (MPC) 1 (MPC)
25 100
2 (LQ) 1 (LQ)
15
20 2 (MPC) 1 (MPC)
(MPC) (Nm)

(MPC) (Nm)
50
10
15
and (Nm)

and (Nm)
5 50
2

1
10
2 (MPC)

1 (MPC)
0
2 (LQ)

1 (LQ)
5 0
2 (LQ) and

1 (LQ) and
-5
0
0
-10
-5

-15 -50
-100 5 10 0 5 10
time (s) time (s)
(a) (b)
-15 -50
0 5 10
Figure 5. Comparison between LQ and MPC controls of the robot torques: (a) Torques of the robot’s
0 5 10
Figure 5. Comparison between LQ(s)
time and MPC controls of the robot torques:
time(a)(s)Torques of the robot’s
second link; (b) Torques of the robot’s first link.
(a)
second link; (b) Torques of the robot’s first link. (b)

Figure 5. Comparison between LQ and MPC controls of the robot torques: (a) Torques of the robot’s
Figuresecond
6a,b depict
10 (b)the
link; robot
Torques synthetic
of the link. v2 and
controls
robot’s first 40 v1 given by Equation (15). As can be seen,
the synthetic controls reach zero when vthe(LQ) end-effector of the robot reaches its
v objective.
(LQ)
2 1
5 35
v2 (MPC) v1 (MPC)
10 40
0 30
v2 (LQ) v1 (LQ)
5 35
2) (rad/s 2)

2) (rad/s 2)

-5 v2 (MPC) 25 v1 (MPC)
0 30
-10 20
and v (MPC)

and v (MPC)
2 v (MPC) (rad/s

1 v (MPC) (rad/s

-5 25
-15 15
2

-10 20
-20 10
v (LQ)

v (LQ)

-15 15
2

-25 5
v (LQ) and

v (LQ) and

-20 10
-30 0
-25 5
2

-35 -5
-30 0
-40 -10
0 5 10 0 5 10
-35 -5
time (s) time (s)
(a) (b)
-40 -10
0 5 10
Figure 6. Comparison between LQ and MPC controls of the robot synthetic controls: (a) Synthetic
0 5 10
time (s) time (s)
controls of the robot’s second link; (b) Synthetic controls of the robot’s first link.
(a) (b)

Figure 6. Comparison between LQ and MPC controls of the robot synthetic controls: (a) Synthetic
Figure 6. Comparison between LQ and MPC controls of the robot synthetic controls: (a) Synthetic
controls of the robot’s second link; (b) Synthetic controls of the robot’s first link.
controls of the robot’s second link; (b) Synthetic controls of the robot’s first link.
Machines 2018, 6, 37 12 of 14

Machines
The 2018, 6, x FOR PEER
convergence REVIEW
of the 12 of 14
joint-angle errors e2 and e1 of the two-link robot arm towards zero using
the two proposed approaches of control are depicted in Figure 7a,b, respectively.

0.5 3.5
e1 (LQ)
0 3 e1 (MPC)

e2 (LQ)
-0.5 2.5
e (LQ) and e (MPC) (rad)

e (LQ) and e (MPC) (rad)

e2 (MPC)

-1 2
2

1
-1.5 1.5

-2 1
2

-2.5 1 0.5

-3 0

-3.5 -0.5
0 5 10 0 5 10
time (s) time (s)
(a) (b)

Figure7.7.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofofthe
theerrors
errorsininthe
the joint
joint angles,
angles, using
using LQLQ and
and MPC
MPC controls.
controls.

6. Conclusion
6. Conclusion
This article proposes a novel MPC control approach for a two-link robot arm with two degrees
This article proposes a novel MPC control approach for a two-link robot arm with two degrees
of freedom. The technique consisted of linearizing a nonlinear dynamic model of the robot by using
of freedom. The technique consisted of linearizing a nonlinear dynamic model of the robot by using
a feedback linearization control. Next, based on the obtained linear model, an MPC controller was
a feedback linearization control. Next, based on the obtained linear model, an MPC controller was
developed that was tuned by choosing the parameters h and  . In order to demonstrate the
developed that was tuned by choosing the parameters h and ρ. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness
ofeffectiveness
the proposedofapproach,
the proposed approach,
the authors the authors
performed performed
a comparative a comparative
study with the LQstudy
controlwith the LQ
approach.
control approach. From the results obtained and presented in this article, it can be stated
From the results obtained and presented in this article, it can be stated that the proposed MPC control that the
proposed
approach MPC
gives control
a better approach
system gives a better
performance system
than the performance
LQ optimal control than the LQ
approach. In optimal
addition,control
both
proposed approaches (MPC control and LQ control) give a better system performanceathan
approach. In addition, both proposed approaches (MPC control and LQ control) give better
thesystem
PID
performance
control thanproposed
technique the PID control
by David technique proposed
and Robles [24]. by David
In the and the
future, Robles [24]. plan
authors In thetofuture, the
test the
authors plan to test the proposed MPC control on a real robot,
proposed MPC control on a real robot, to verify this method’s robustness.to verify this method’s robustness.

Acknowledgments:
Author Contributions:The authors
E.-H.G. thankGuechi)
(El-Hadi the editor and thethe
proposed reviewers for model
idea of the their valuable comments.
predictive control approach of a
two-link robot arm, developed its theory and carried out the implementation of the proposed control approach
inFunding:
the MATLABThis environment.
research wasInfunded byhe
addition, theproposed
Ministrythe
of Higher Education
LQ control andfor
approach Scientific Research
this robot of Algeria
and wrote the
manuscript
[CNEPRU:with the help of S.B. (Sašo Blažič), Y.Z. (Youcef Zennir), and S.B. (Samir Bouzoualegh). S.B. (Sašo Blažič)
J0201620140014].
verified the theory and the mathematical proof, and he participated with E.-H.G. (El-Hadi Guechi) to carry out
Author
the Contributions:
discussion E.-H.G.results.
of the simulation (El-Hadi
All Guechi) proposed the
authors contributed to idea of the
the final model predictive control approach
manuscript.
of a two-link robot arm, developed its theory and carried out the implementation of the proposed control
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Algeria
approach J0201620140014].
[CNEPRU: in the MATLAB environment. In addition, he proposed the LQ control approach for this robot and
wrote the manuscript with the help of S.B. (Sašo Blažič), Y.Z. (Youcef Zennir), and S.B. (Samir Bouzoualegh).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments.
S.B. (Sašo Blažič) verified the theory and the mathematical proof, and he participated with E.-H.G. (El-Hadi
Conflicts
Guechi) of carry outThe
to Interest: authors declare
the discussion of theno conflict of
simulation interest.
results. All The funders
authors had no to
contributed role
theinfinal
the design of the
manuscript.
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to
Conflicts
publish of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
the results.
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision
to publish the results.

References
Machines 2018, 6, 37 13 of 14

References
1. Chaudhary, H.; Panwar, V.; Prasad, R.; Sukavanam, N. Adaptive neuro fuzzy based hybrid force/position
control for an industrial robot manipulator. J. Intell. Manuf. 2016, 27, 1299–1308. [CrossRef]
2. Zanotto, V.; Gasparetto, A.; Lanzutti, A.; Boscariol, P.; Vidoni, R. Experimental Validation of Minimum
Time-jerk Algorithms for Industrial Robots. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2011, 64, 197–219. [CrossRef]
3. Guoa, Q.; Yub, T.; Jiangc, D. Robust H∞ positional control of 2-DOF robotic arm driven by electro-hydraulic
servo system. ISA Trans. 2015, 59, 55–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Plooij, M.; Wolfslag, W.; Wisse, M. Robust feedforward control of robotic arms with friction model uncertainty.
Robot. Autom. Syst. 2015, 70, 83–91. [CrossRef]
5. Liu, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, C.L.P. Coordinated fuzzy control of robotic arms with actuator
nonlinearities and motion constraints. Inf. Sci. 2015, 296, 1–13. [CrossRef]
6. Duka, A.-V. Neural Network based Inverse Kinematics Solution for Trajectory Tracking of a Robotic Arm.
Procedia Technol. 2014, 12, 20–27. [CrossRef]
7. Uzunovic, T.; Baranb, E.-A.; Golubovicc, E.; Sabanovicd, A. A novel hybrid contouring control method for
3-DOF robotic manipulators. Mechatronics 2016, 40, 178–193. [CrossRef]
8. Zanchettin, A.M.; Rocco, P. Motion planning for robotic manipulators using robust constrained control.
Control Eng. Pract. 2017, 59, 127–136. [CrossRef]
9. Özgüra, E.; Mezouarb, Y. Kinematic modeling and control of a robot arm using unit dual quaternions.
Robot. Autom. Syst. 2016, 77, 66–73. [CrossRef]
10. Markusa, E.D.; Ageeb, J.T.; Jimohc, A.A. Flat control of industrial robotic manipulators. Robot. Autom. Syst.
2017, 87, 226–236. [CrossRef]
11. Verscheure, D.; Demeulenaere, B.; Swevers, J.; De Schutter, J.; Diehl, M. Practical Time-Optimal Trajectory
Planning for Robots: A Convex Optimization Approach. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2009, 54, 2318–2327.
[CrossRef]
12. Boone, G. Minimum-time Control of the Acrobot. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intemational Conference on
Robotics and Automation, New Mexico, NM, USA, 20–25 April 1997; pp. 3281–3287.
13. Kai, C.-Y.; Huang, A.-C. Adaptive LQ control of robot manipulators. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE
Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, Hangzhou, China, 9–11 June 2014. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, K.-Y. Robust Optimal Adaptive Sliding Mode Control with the Disturbance Observer for a Manipulator
Robot System. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 2018, 1–15. [CrossRef]
15. Wilson, J.; Charest, M.; Dubay, R. Non-linear model predictive control schemes with application on a 2 link
vertical robot manipulator. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2016, 41, 23–30. [CrossRef]
16. Rybus, T.; Seweryn, K.; Sasiadek, J.Z. Control system for free-floating space manipulator based on nonlinear
model predictive control (NMPC). J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2017, 85, 491–509. [CrossRef]
17. Boucetta, R. Generalized Predictive Control for a Flexible Single-Link Manipulator. Comput. Inf. Syst. Ind.
Manag. 2013, 499–510. [CrossRef]
18. Boscariol, P.; Gasparetto, A.; Zanotto, V. Model Predictive Control of a Flexible Links Mechanism. J. Intell.
Robot. Syst. 2010, 58, 125–147. [CrossRef]
19. Kayastha, S.; Shi, L.; Katupitiya, J.; Pearce, G. Nonlinear model predictive control of a planar three-link space
manipulator. In Proceedings of the 11th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), Gold Coast, QLD, Australia,
17–20 December 2017. [CrossRef]
20. Avanzini, G.-B.; Zanchettin, A.-M.; Rocco, P. Reactive constrained model predictive control for redundant
mobile manipulators. Intell. Autom. Syst. 2015, 1301–1314. [CrossRef]
21. Burlacu, A.; Copot, C.; Lazar, C. Predictive control architecture for real-time image moments based servoing
of robot manipulators. J. Intell. Manuf. 2014, 25, 1125–1134. [CrossRef]
22. Durmuş, B.; Temurtaş, H.; Yumuşak, N.; Temurtaş, F. A study on industrial robotic manipulator model using
model based predictive controls. J. Intell. Manuf. 2009, 20, 233–241. [CrossRef]
23. Boscariol, P.; Gasparetto, A.; Zanotto, V. Model predictive control of a flexible links mechanism. J. Intell.
Robot. Sys. 2010, 58, 125–147. [CrossRef]
24. David, I.; Robles, G. PID Control Dynamics of A Robotics Arm Manipulator with Two Degrees of Freedom.
Control De Procesos y Robótica. 2012, pp. 1–7. Available online: https://fr.slideshare.net/popochis/pid-
control-dynamics-of-a-robotic-arm-manipulator-with-two-degrees-of-freedom (accessed on 4 April 2017).
Machines 2018, 6, 37 14 of 14

25. Khalil, H.K. Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed.; Prentice Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002;
ISBN 13: 978-0130673893.
26. Farzin, P.; Yarmahmoudi, M.H.; Mirzaie, M.; Emamzadeh, S.; Hivand, Z. Design novel fuzzy robust feedback
linearization control with application to robot manipulator. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2013, 5, 1–10. [CrossRef]
27. Magni, L.; Scattolini, R.; Aström, K. Global stabilization of the inverted pendulum using model predictive
control. In Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 21–26 July 2002; pp. 141–146.
28. Gawthrop, P.J.; Wang, L. Intermittent predictive control of an inverted pendulum. Control Eng. Pract. 2006,
14, 1347–1356. [CrossRef]
29. Mills, A.; Wills, A.; Ninness, B. Nonlinear model predictive control of an inverted pendulum. In Proceedings
of the American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 10–12 June 2009; pp. 2335–2340.
30. Guechi, E.-H.; Bouzoualegh, S.; Messikh, L.; Blažic, S. Model predictive control of a two-link robot arm.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Systems and Electric Technologies,
Hammamet, Tunisia, 22–25 March 2018; pp. 409–414. [CrossRef]
31. Bauer, P.; Bokor, J. Development and performance evaluation of an infinite horizon LQ optimal tracker.
Eur. J. Control 2018, 39, 8–20. [CrossRef]
32. Ntogramatzidis, L.; Ferrante, A. On the solution of the Riccati differential equation arising from the LQ
optimal control problem. Syst. Control Lett. 2010, 59, 114–121. [CrossRef]
33. Precup, R.-E.; Angelov, P.; Costa, B.S.J.; Sayed-Mouchaweh, M. An overview on fault diagnosis and
nature-inspired optimal control of industrial process applications. Comput. Ind. 2015, 74, 75–94. [CrossRef]
34. Precup, R.-E.; Sabau, M.-C.; Petriu, E.M. Nature-inspired optimal tuning of input membership functions
of Takagi-Sugeno-Kang fuzzy models for anti-lock braking systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 27, 575–589.
[CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).