Accepted Manuscript

Robust adaptive control of a bio-inspired robot manipulator using bat

algorithm

Mehran Rahmani , Ahmad Ghanbari , Mir Mohammad Ettefagh

PII: S0957-4174(16)30097-5
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.006
Reference: ESWA 10575

To appear in: Expert Systems With Applications

Received date: 12 September 2015

Revised date: 12 December 2015
Accepted date: 2 March 2016

Please cite this article as: Mehran Rahmani , Ahmad Ghanbari , Mir Mohammad Ettefagh , Robust
adaptive control of a bio-inspired robot manipulator using bat algorithm, Expert Systems With Applica-
tions (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 A new combined control law (AFOPIDSMC) proposed for chattering

reduction.
 We apply an adaptive controller for updating FOPID parameters.
 A bio-inspired bat algorithm used for tuning the proposed controller
parameters.
 The stability of the proposed controller is proved by Lyapunov theory.

T
 The simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed control.

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Robust adaptive control of a bio-inspired robot manipulator using bat algorithm

Mehran Rahmani

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Iran

Email: rahmani_mehran62@yahoo.com

Ahmad Ghanbari

T
Professor in Center of Excellence for Mechatronics, University of Tabriz, Iran

IP
Email: a-ghanbari@tabrizu.ac.ir

Mir Mohammad Ettefagh

CR
Associate professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Iran

Email: Ettefagh@tabrizu.ac.ir

Abstract US
AN
This paper proposes a novel adaptive fractional order PID sliding mode controller (AFOPIDSMC) using a

Bat algorithm to control of a Caterpillar robot manipulator. A fractional order PID (FOPID) control is
M

applied to improve both trajectory tracking and robustness. Sliding mode controller (SMC) is one of the

control methods which provides high robustness and low tracking error. Using hybridization, a new
ED

combined control law is proposed for chattering reduction by means of FOPID controller and high

trajectory tracking through using SMC. Then, an adaptive controller design motivated from the SMC is
PT

applied for updating FOPID parameters. A metaheuristic approach, the Bat search algorithm based on the

echolocation behavior of bats is applied for optimal design of the Caterpillar robot in order to tune the
CE

parameter AFOPIDSMC controllers (BA-AFOPIDSMC). To study the effectiveness of Bat algorithm, its

performance is compared with five other controllers such as PID, FOPID, SMC, AFOPIDSMC and PSO-
AC

AFOPIDSMC. The stability of the AFOPIDSMC controller is proved by Lyapunov theory. Numerical

simulation results completely indicate the advantage of BA-AFOPIDSMC for trajectory tracking and

chattering reduction.

Keywords

Caterpillar robot, Fractional PID controller, SMC, Robust control, adaptive control, Bat algorithm.

1. Introduction
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In the field of engineering, bio-inspiration (Hsu & Juang, 2013) can be investigated in mechanisms, designing

and control significantly is modifying state of the art in robotics (Juang, Chen & Jhan, 2015). Researchers

investigate the measuring effects of animal locomotion in order to define the optimal gait for given-size robot.

Limbless animals such as Caterpillars and Snakes are among the most accessible animals in each part of the Earth

due to their structures and locomotion mechanisms. Their locomotion mechanisms are based on the flexible

movements of their bodies. Investigating the Caterpillar locomotion in order to change it into a robot will be

T
effective as an engineering application. According to Fig. 1, the movement of the Caterpillar could be categorized in

IP
different steps. First of all, the extending situation of the Caterpillar is considered as a primary status, then the

CR
endpoints contact with the ground. In the next step, the Caterpillar releases a wave, hence, its rear endpoint moves to

grasp the ground. In the last step, the frontal section moves, and finally the Caterpillar in a further situation return to

US
its initial position. This feature can be used in a robot in various fields such as inspecting gas pipes (Yamashita,

Matsui, Kawanishi, Kaneko, Murakami, Omori, & Asama, 2011; Wang, Song, Wang, Guo, & Tan, 2011; Bodnicki
AN
& Kamiński, 2014; Zhou, Tao, Cheng, Liu, & Fu, 2013), using in medical issues (Zarrouk, Sharf, & Shoham, 2010,

2011, 2012; Zarouk & Shoham, 2013). Ghanbari, Rostami, Noorani and Fakhrabadi (2008), considering the

inspiration of Caterpillar locomotion of the nature, proposed the model of the movements of the robot. They
M

classified the locomotion mechanism into two sub-mechanisms. As a result, they demonstrate the snapshot of

Caterpillar gait locomotion using Matlab program. As follows; the dynamic equations are obtained using Euler-
ED

Lagrange equations. And then, the trajectory tracking of joints has been optimized by Genetic Algorithm in order to

minimize the consumed effort. A reduction of 5 to 37 percent in torque consumption has been obtained (Ghanbari &
PT

Noorani, 2011). Hopkins and Gupta (2014) designed a robot that was inspired from the snake. Regarding its hyper-

redundant body, it can pass through tight spaces. This robot is faster than its previous structures that rectilinear gaits
CE

were used in them. The frictional force mainly occurs by high speed linear motion. The Worm robot has been built

in different structures such as Nickel Titanium Coil Actuators (Kim, Hawkes, Cho, Joldaz, Foleyz, & Wood, 2009;
AC

Seok, Onal, Cho, Wood, Rus, & Kim, 2013) and Origami (Onal, Wood, & Rus, 2011, 2013).

PID controller is a convenient method in trajectory tracking that is acceptable for accurately implementing and

tracking performances. The PID controller includes three independent parameters. By tuning the three parameters in

the PID controller, the controller can provide control operation designed for particular developing demands. Ayala

and Coelho (2012) presented a multi-objective genetic algorithm for PID parameters` tuning applied to a robotic
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

manipulator. The proposed NSGA- optimization method provides an application process to implement a robust

solution for trajectory tracking in closed loop. Different methods such as Neural Networks (Yu & Rosen, 2013),

Fuzzy logic (Pan et al., 2015), Fuzzy Neural Network (Wai & Muthusamy, 2014) and etc., efficiently suggested

tuning the parameters of PID controllers. In recent years, the fractional controller has been developed in (Lan, Gu,

Chen, Zhou, & Luo, 2014; Tang, Zhang, Zhang, Zhao, & Guan, 2013; Muresan, Dulf, Copot, De Keyser, & Ionescu,

2015; Vinagre, Monje, Calderón, & Suárez, 2007). Podlubny (1999) proposed the fractional order PID controller as

T
an extension of PID controller. It utilizes fractional order Integrals and derivatives and also it can supply robustness

IP
and obtains higher efficiency than the common integer controllers (Li, Luo, & Chen, 2010). The suggested method

CR
in (Li, Luo, & Chen, 2010) is based on frequency analysis and is considered for SIS systems. Dumlu and Erenturk

(2014) observed that transient and steady-state error values have been reduced with the PI D controller for the

US
Maryland manipulator tracking control in comparison to the conventional PID controller.

In most cases that PID controller has been used, the lack of high robustness and the average of trajectory tracking
AN
are mentioned. SMC gives us the best tracking performance. This method is very useful and popular because of its

robustness in comparison to decompensation certainty in dynamic model. Different approaches have been carried
M

out for improving trajectory tracking robot arms by using SMC, such as an adaptive sliding mode control

(Soltanpour, Khooban, & Khalghani, 2014) and an expression of the sliding mode controller (SMC) for robot arms
ED

in generalized velocity components (GVC(Herman, 2005). Capisani and Ferrara (2012), while using SMC, have

minimized the value of chattering. In some cases, the robot arms are in contact with the surface. The force of the
PT

contact surface that can be obtained by using a sensor is at the risk of damaging. Zeinali and Notash (2010), using

SMC had reached to good trajectory tracking without using the sensor.
CE

A Metaheuristic optimization algorithm can be utilized in order to tune the controller parameters in different

engineering problems. Maldondo, Castillo and Malin (2013) proposed the optimization of the type-2 membership
AC

functions for the average approximation of type-2 fuzzy controller using PSO. They compared the simulation results

of the optimization using the PSO approach with genetic algorithm. Pedro, Danger, Dahunsi and Ali (2014)

proposed a nonlinear control method utilizing dynamic neural network-based input-output feedback linearization for

a quarter- car active vehicle suspension systems. They optimized the gains of the proposed controllers and the

weights of the dynamic neural network using PSO. Hashim, El-Ferik and Abido (2015) proposed a novel practical
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

method based on fuzzy rules for online tuning L1 adaptive controller parameters. They reduced both the tracking

error and the controller input signal range with fuzzy controller, which is optimally tuned using PSO. Therefore, we

can apply PSO in different engineering problems as an effective optimization algorithm (Tavakkoli- Moghaddam,

Azarkish & Sadeghnejad- Barkousaraie, 2011; Zhu, Wang, Wang & Chen, 2011; Li & Wu, 2011). BA is completely

stronger than PSO, genetic algorithm and Harmony Search (Yang, 2010). The mainly reason is that BA uses an

appropriate combination of significant advantages of mentioned algorithms. Abd- Ekazim and Ali (2016) proposed

T
for optimal tuning of PI controllers for load frequency controller design. The numerical simulation results

IP
demonstrated the superiority of BA in comparing with Simulated Annealing in PI controller optimization. A PID

CR
cascade controller applied to the control of an interconnected, multi area thermal system. Controller parameters are

tuned at the same time using powerful evolutionary computational approach BA (Dash, Sakia & Sinha, 2015).

US
Osaba, Yang, Oiaz, Lopez-Garcia and Carballedo (2016) proposed a discrete version of the BA to solve the famous

Travelling Salesman problems. Furthermore, they presented a development in the fundamental structure of the
AN
classic BA. The experimental results have demonstrated that the proposed developed BA outperforms completely all

the other alternatives in most of the problems. So, BA can be considered as a powerful optimization tool (Svecko &

Kusic, 2015; Meng, Gao, Liu & Zhang, 2015).

M

SMC has some good advantages such as acceptable tracking performance, resistance to disturbances and its
ED

disadvantages are poor stability and chattering. Because of the vast benefits of the FOPID controller, the main

problem of this controller can be stated as its low tracking performances. In this paper, a new robust adaptive control
PT

has been proposed, in which it is suggested that control system is able to eliminate their disadvantages, of FOPID

controller and a new robust adaptive control, to control a Caterpillar robot manipulator. An adaptive controller
CE

design is motivated from the sliding mode control and is applied for updating FOPID parameters. In the following,

Bat algorithm optimization was used to design and select the control parameter using an optimal approach. The
AC

stability of the proposed control system can be guaranteed considering the Lyapunov stability theorem. The

performance of the suggested control system has been compared with classical PID, SMC, FOPID, AFOPIDSMC

and PSO-AFOPIDSMC. The simulation results have been shown that the performance of proposed controller can be

considered as the best in comparison to the others.

The rest of this paper was organized as follows. In Section 2, the summary was explaining the motion of the

robot. In Section3, obtaining dynamic equations was defined through utilizing the Euler - Lagrange equation. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Section4 included the sliding mode controller. In Section5, the fractional-order PID controller was described.

Section6 defined adaptive robust fractional-order PID sliding mode controller. The implementation of fractional-

order operator was delineated In Section 7. In section 8, the bat algorithm was applied for tuning of proposed

controller parameters. Section9 was about simulation results. At the end, the conclusion and contributions of the

work were presented.

T
2. Caterpillar kinematic description

IP
In this section the main motion pattern of Caterpillar is defined to develop dynamic relations. A series of the

CR
connected joints is shown in that figure. They created robot forward locomotion. The distance movement of a

robotin an entire cycle can be defined as (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011):

x  2l (1  cos  )
US (1)

The main motion pattern could be categorized into four sub- mechanisms M1, M2, M2, M1. The joint angles at
AN
the end of each step are determined in Table 1. At least one link is unmoving in each sub-mechanism because the

adequate friction isprovided. The unmoving links are demonstrated with dark colors in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. A
M

symmetry property in sequence motion of the robot can be discovered in Fig. 2. Therefore, the modeling of the two

sub-mechanisms, M1, M2, according to Fig.3 and Fig.4, is sufficient. At the Next step, coordinate systemis reserved
ED

for the last two sub-mechanisms and then contrary trajectory orientation is used. The angles in these models are

formulated in local coordinate system. So they will be converted into a global coordinate system since each sub-

mechanismis solved.The sub-mechanism M1 is known as a 3-R Planar manipulator. The geometries constrain of
PT

system can be defined as (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011):


CE

n (2)
sin i  0
i 1

n, i can be described as the number of the joints, the angle of ith link with due to positive direction of horizontal
AC

axes respectively.

 0  0, i  i 1  i (3)

3. Dynamic modeling

In this section the dynamic equations of sub-mechanism M1 will be obtained. According to Fig.3 and Fig.4, the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

manipulator is assumed to move in vertical plane x-y. Pi and Vi are position and velocity of origin of ith link. So, the

velocity centroid of pth link and its square can be denoted as (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011):

 
lp (4)
v p v p   p  sin  p i  cos  p jˆ
2

p p 1 (5)
lp2
 l l   C
2
vp  p 2  i j i j ij
4 i 1 j 1

T
Li denotes the length, mi represents the mass and Ii defines the moment of inertia of ith link.

IP
the abbreviationis used as follows:

CR
C ij  cos i   j   , S ij  sin i   j  
Also, the height of the centroid point of pth link is defined by the following equation (Ghanbari & Noorani,

2011):

1
h p  Pp 1. jˆ  l p sin  p 
p

  l j sin  j   2p sin  p
l
US (6)
AN
2 j 1

The total kinetic energy can be developed as follows:

M

 
1
3
2 1 (7)
 m p  p   p  2p  ml 2 (2812  1622  432  3612c12  1223c 23  1231c 31 )
2 p 1
24
ED

Also, total gravitational potential energy described as follows:

m
1
V  p g hp  mgl  5sin 1  3sin 2  sin 1 
PT

p 1
2 (8)

Where Qk describes nonconservative forces,  represents joint torques exerted to the links, FR and Ff denote the
CE

normal and frictional forces apply on the tip of the last link. Virtual works, with application of all the non-

conservative forces in the system and with respect to Coulomb friction model, is defined as:
AC

 
 
3 3 3
w   .  Ff i  N jˆ . p 1    p   p   p 1   N    l p sin  p  p   l p cos  p  p 
 
p 1  p 1 p 1 

    
3 3 3

p 1
p   p 1  l p cos  p   sin  p N  p    p   p 1  p N  p  Q p  p
p 1 p 1
(9)

Where
p  l p (cos  p   sin  p ) , and    sgn( tip . et ) , It should be described that the  i=1, …,n,do not
i
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

recognize an autonomous coordinate system. FR which is Lagrange’s coefficient is emerged due to the geometric

constraint of the model. Furthermore, it is noticed that 0=0=0.

The motion equations can be obtained using Euler-Lagrange relations, so it can be represented as:

d     
    Q
dt      (10)

If Eqs. (7), (8), and (9) are substituted in Eq. (10), the motion equations for sub-mechanism M1 will be obtained

T
(Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011):

IP
 2
 14 9c12 3c13   1  2
0 9 s12 3 s13   1   5cos 1   1 1 0  1   1 

CR
2
ml    m l   m gl       
6c12 8 3c 23   2    9 s12 0 3 s 23    22    3cos 2    0 1 1  2    2  FR
2  6   2  cos    0 0 1      
 3c13 3c 23 2   3   3 s
 13 3 s 23 0    2   3    3   3 
  3
(11)

 20 15c12 9c13 3c14   1 

2 15c  

 0

US
The motion equations for sub-mechanism M2 can be obtained similarly (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011):

15 s12
 2
9 s13 3 s14   1 
 2 
9 s 23 3 s 24   2
 7 cos 1 
 
 5cos 2 
AN
ml  12 14 9c 23 3c 24   2  ml  15 s12
2 0 m gl
  
6  9c13 9c 23 8 3c 34   3  6  9 s13 9 s 23 0 3 s 34    2  2  3cos  
      3  3

 3c14 3c 24 3c 34 2   4   3 s14 3 s 24 3 s 34 0   2   cos  
 4 
 4 
 1 1 0 0  1   1 
M

    
0 1 1 0   2   2 
  F
 0 0 1 1  3   3  R
     
 0 0 0 1   4   4 
ED

(12)

Therefore, the equations can be summarized as:

PT

M    C   2  G    D      FR (13)

Where  , , are the joint positions, velocity and acceleration vectors.M () denotes the mass matrix of the
CE

manipulator, C() expresses the centrifugal coefficient matrix, G() is the gravity vector, and according to

Kronecker Delta , D is the subtraction matrix with D mn= mn- m(n-1) resolution.  represents the applied torque on
AC

 
joints,  d  , is the vector of un-modeled dynamic disturbances. Obviously, Eq.(13) can be written as:

  M 1  C   2  M 1  G    d t   M 1   D   M 1 FR (14)

Where d t   M 1
  d  ,  is external disturbance,from Eq.(14), the dynamic equations for a worm robot

defined as:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

  Y  2  PG  Q   R FR (15)

Where Y  M
1
 C   , P  M 1   , and Q  M 1   D , R  M 1    and u t    are the control

vector. Y , P , Q , and F present some uncertainties of parameter variations; So, Eq(15) can be arranged as:

   Y  Y  2   P  P G    Q  Q u t    R  R  FR (16)

T
By definition of l,u as lower and upper uncertainty values, the uncertainties can be bounded as:

Y l  Y  Y u , Pl  P  Pu , Ql  Q  Qu , and R l  R  Ru

IP
CR
4. Sliding mode controller

US
Sliding mode control is well known because of its robustness with a high tracking trajectory and its supplying of a

robust solution in order to estimate parameters, fault diagnosis and control. Sliding mode control (SMC) methods
AN
are developed to design a control system with complex, high-order nonlinear dynamic plant operating under

uncertainconditions and external disturbances, low sensitivity to plant parameter variations and modeling errors.

Determination of sliding surface s(t) is the most important and valuable factor in SMC design, which it can have a
M

good performance because of sliding surfaces. Therefore in order to define sliding surface as (Amer, Sallam, &

Elawady, 2011): s  e  e , where   diag [1 , 2 , 3 ] has known as a vector of slopes, which is named bandwidth
ED

of the SMC and 1 , 2 , 3 are positive constants.

PT

To obtain desired performance, the control endeavor being derived in the solution of s t   0 , without uncertainty
CE

d(t)=0, it will be referred to an equivalent control endeavor, defined by ueq(t)

s    r (18)
AC

s  Y  2  PG    Qu t   RFR  r (19)

ueq t   Q 1 r Y  2  PG    RFR  (20)

 

Therefore, if external disturbance occured, the equivalent control endeavor cannot compensate the favorable control

performance;Threfore, a secondary control endeavor can be designed to remove the effect of unpredictable

disturbances.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The secondary control endeavor deals with reaching control endeavor byus(t). In this issue, the Lyapunov function

is defined as (Chang & Yan, 2005):

1 2
V t   s t  (21)
2

With V  0   0 and V t   0 for s t   0 .The reaching condition which can guarantee the trajectory tracking of

T
position error can be written as:

IP
V t   s t  s t   0 , s t   0 (22)

CR
The equivalent control term ueq(t) in Eq.(20) is completed by a control term us(t). On the other hand, the SMC law

can be defined as:

u t   ueq t   u s t  US (23)
AN
According to Eq. (22), the reaching control u s t  can be obtained as:

ss  s   Y  Y  2   P  P G    Q  Q u t    R  R  FR   r 



M

 

 s   Y  Y  2   P  P G    Q  Q  Q 1  r Y  2  PG    RFR  u s t  

(24)

  R  R  FR   r 
ED

According to results of Eq. (24), And by simplifying it, it can be said:

 Y  Q Y Q    P  PQ
1 1
 
Q G    Q 1Q r  Q 1R Q  R FR  s Q  Q u s
PT

ss  s 2
(25)
CE

Eq. (25) will be less than zero, of course certainty of this equation should be met, the reaching control can be

written as:
AC

u s t   sign  s Q  Q 
1
  Y  
 Q 1Y Q  2   P  PQ 1Q G    Q 1Q r  (26)

Visibly, if Eq. (26) is substituted with Eq. (25), V t   0 is obtained. Therefore, the reaching control can be

determined as:

u s t   Ksign s t  (27)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Where r  d   e is the reference acceleration which permits the desired acceleration to be shifted according to

the velocity error. K is the bounds of uncertainty vector which has to be known as a prior sign(s) is a Signum

function.

First of all, one must choose Ks for joint angles, which represents a switching gain of SMC, in order to compensate

for the instability and disturbance.

T
IP
Chattering is one of the disadvantages of SMC; So, the common method to reduce the chattering problem is to use

saturation function sat(s,). sgn(s) should be replaced with sat(s,), Where saturation functions can be defined as:

CR
sgn(s i ) , si 0
sat (s , ) si i 1, 2,3, 4
, si

Which  is a small positive constant.

US
AN
M

5. Fractional-order PID controller

PID controllers have been used widely as a conventional system in the most sections of industrial structures. It
ED

calculates the difference error between processing variables, which they are joint angles and desired setpoint in this

system. It uses Kp, Ki, Kd parameters in order to minimize the error which each of them causes a change of system
PT

properties.

So, the PID controller can be defined as:

CE


de (t )
u PID (t )  K p e (t )  K i e (t )dt  K d
dt
AC

e (t )   (t )  d (t )
(28)

Where Kp, Ki, Kdare the proportional, integral, derivative gains in Eq. (28), respectively.

In time domain the PID controller can be defined as follows:

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

d e (t ) d e (t )
U FOPID (t )  K P e (t )  K i  Kd (29)
dt  dt 

Where  and are fractional order operators; The FOPID in S domain can be expressed as:

1
U FOPID (S )  (K P  K i  K d S  )E (S ) (30)
S

T
IP
6. Adaptive robust fractional-order PID sliding mode control

CR
FOPID and SMC have advantages and disadvantages. The low tracking trajectory is one of the FOPID

drawbacks. On the contrary, SMC is robust and stable against any perturbation and the main disadvantage of SMC is

US
chattering. Thus, according to Fig.5, by combining both of FOPID and SMC with regard to their effects, it can be

obtained a suitable control approach, which has the best performances. It can be written as:
AN
U (t )  U FOPID U SMC (31)
M

The control endeavor is derived in the solution of s (t )  0 , which can be written as:

e  e  0 (32)
ED

The notice that tracking error will tend to zero ( e (t )  0 ), when time goes to infinity ( t   ).
PT

The Lyapunov function is being selected to prove the stability of proposed controller, which it can be denoted as:
CE

1 2
v  s (33)
2
AC

Taking the derivative of Eq. (31) yields:

v  ss (34)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ss  s   Y  Y  2   P  P G    Q  Q u t    R  R  FR   r 


   
 s   Y  Y  2   P  P G    Q  Q  Q 1  r Y  2  PG    RFR  u s t   u FOPID 

(35)

  R  R  FR   r 

With the simplification of Eq. (33), the following is obtained:

  Y  Q   

T
ss  s Y Q  2  P  PQ 1Q G    Q 1Q  r  Q 1R Q  R FR
1
(36)

 Q  Q U FOPID  s Q  Q u s  s Q  Q u FOPID

IP
CR
Noticeably, if Eq. (26) is substituted with Eq. (36), it guarantees V t   0 .

According to the gradient approach and the chain rule (Chang & Yan, 2005), and using Eq.(29) and Eq.(36), the

SS SS U FOPID

US
adaptation laws for three control gain Kp, Ki and Kd can be achieved as follows:
AN
K p      S e (t ) (37)
K p U FOPID K p

SS SS U FOPID d e (t )

M

K i      S (38)
K i U FOPID K i dt 
ED

SS SS U FOPID d e (t )

K d      S (39)
K d U FOPID K d dt 
PT

Where  >0 is the learning rate.

CE

7. Implementation of fractional order operator

AC

It is considered that the approach is utilized for implementing the fractional order integrators and differentiators.

Different authors have considered specific definitions such as Grunwald-Letinikov (G-L), Reimann and Lioville (R-

L), Oustaloup’s approximation, Cauto definition, MittagLefller (M-L) and etc. for the implementation of fractional

order operators; the fundamental fractional order differentiator and integrator can be denoted as follows:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 d 0
 0 R (0 )  0
 dt

a0 Dt0  1 R (0 )  0 (40)
 t

 (d  ) 0
 0
R (0 )  0

Where R stands for Real, a0 is related to initial conditions and 0 is desired fractional order operator that can be

T
complex number. In some recent researches, the fractional order is carried out with the Oustaloup’s recursive

IP
approximation method. The approximation transfer which is available is similar to fractional operator S when  is

the fractional power of S.

CR
N ou
S W f zo
S   K ou  S W f po
(41)
K ou  N ou

US
Where Kou is gain, W f zo indicates zeros and W f po indicates poles of the filter and can be defined as follows
AN
(Sathya & Ansari, 2015):

K ou  N ou  (1/2)  ( /2)
M

W h  2 N ou 1
W f po W bou  ou  (42)
W b 
 ou 
ED

K ou  N ou  (1/2)  ( /2)
W h  2 N ou 1
W f zo W bou  ou  (43)
W b 
PT

 ou 

K ou W h (44)
CE

ou


Therefore,  is the order of fractional deferential or integrator; 2Nou+1 is the order of approximation; W bou ,W hou 
AC

is the frequency range (Sathya & Ansari, 2015). This approximation is selected over other approaches because of its

feasibilities of implementing it in real hardware utilizing higher-order infinite impulse response type digital or

analog filters for the non-integer order of differential-Integrator. In this research, the value of N and frequency range

are selected as 3 and [10-3, 102] respectively.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8. Tuning of proposed control parameters using bat algorithm

BAT bio-inspired algorithm is an optimization algorithm, inspired by the echolocation behavior of common bats

in locating their foods. It is proposed in (Xine-she, 2010; Yang, 2011) and is utilized for solving many optimization

problems.The bat algorithm utilizes the echolocation behavior of bats. These bats emit a very loud sound pulse and

listen for the echo that reflected from the surrounding things. Their signal bandwidthranges are contingent on the

species, and increases using harmonics. The ith bat flies randomly with velocity i at positionxiwith a fixed frequency

T
fmin. The bat changes its wavelength and loudness A to find food.Such strong echolocation capabilities of microdots

IP
can be associated with the objective function in order to be optimized. The bat behavior in searching the optimal

CR
solution can be formulated to optimizealgorithm. By idealizing some of the echolocation features of microbats, the

bat-inspired algorithms can be developed. The bat’s echolocation properties are to solve an optimization problem

US
which are created by the following assumptions (Sathya & Ansari, 2015).

1) All bats use echolocation to recognize distance.

AN
2) Bats fly randomly with velocities i at position xi with fixed frequency/wavelength fmin, changing

wavelength/frequency  and loudness A0 to find for the prey.

3) They regulate their wavelength/frequency and can adjust pulse emission rate ri[0-1] according to the
M

proximity of the prey.

ED

4) When they come close to the prey, their loudness changes from large A0 to small Amin values.

Frequency occures in a range of [fmin, fmax] in practical implementations and is selected in such a way that it is
PT

analogous to the size of the domain of interest. Rules need to be determined to set their positions and velocities in

the d-dimensional search space for a virtual bat to solve an optimization problem. The new position xi+ and velocity
CE

i+ at time step t are defined as follows (Mitić & Miljković, 2015):

f i  f min  (f max  f min ) (45)

AC

it  it 1  (x it 1  x * )f i (46)

x it  x it 1  it (47)

Where ξ[0-1] is the random vector taken from a uniform distribution, x* is the current global best solution

among all N bats. For local search, once a solution is chosen among the recent best solution, the new solution is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

obtained on the basis of recent loudness Ai of the bat and the maximum allowed variance max(var) during a time

stop as follows:

x new  x old   Ai max(var) (48)

When a bat is found its prey, the loudness decreases and the rate of pulse emission increases. The bat is moving

towards the optimal solution according to:

T
IP
Ait 1   Ait , rit 1  rr [1  e  t ] (49)

CR
Where and  are constant. The initial emission rate is r0[0-1] and the initial boundness is Ai[0.1-0.9] and

==0.9. Bat algorithm is utilized for tuning the [ , , , , K] parameters of proposed controller for a Caterpillar

US
robot manipulator. The objective function of this problem is defined as (Zeng, Lu, Dai, Zhang, Chen, Zheng, &

Peng, 2014):
AN

J  
0
(w 1 e (t )  w 2u 2 (t ))dt w 3t u (50)
M


In that objective function 0
w 2u 2 (t )dt occurs because of avoiding the exporting a large control value. Secondly,
ED

for evaluating the rapidity the response of a control system and the rising time w3tu is used. A flow chart of bat bio-

inspired algorithm for tuning of proposed controller parameters is illustrated in Fig. 6.

PT
CE

9. Simulation results

The proposed BA-AFOPIDSMC controller is applied for control of a Caterpillar robot manipulator. Also,
AC

different comprative approaches are applied to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed Bat algorithm for

tuning AFOPIDSMC parameters. The equations of movement and dynamic relations of the arm areobtained. All

simulations have been done using MATLAB program. In order to demonstrate the performance of the proposed

controller, simulation for each of sub-mechanisms are carried out. The characteristics of links for both sub-

mechanisms are tabulated in Table 2. Design of bat bio-inspired algorithm is carried out for tuning proposed

controller parameters of a Caterpillar robot manipulator. The block diagram of system is illustrated in Fig. 5. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

parameters which are used for proposed controller in this paper are: total population= 40; number of iteration= 22;

loudness A= 0.5; wavelength r = 0.5; frequency fmin=0.2, fmax=0.8. In AFOPIDSMC controller optimum the gain

values are chosen by changes the mentioned parameters. The PSO parameters are defined as: population size =40,

number of iteration= 22, velocity constant c1=2, velocity constant c2=2 (GirirajKumar, Jayaraj & R.Kishan, 2010).

The tuned values of the proposed controller parameters are listed in Table 3. The variables of objective function for

both sub-mechanisms are choosen as: w1=0.99, w2=0.01, w3=2.

T
9.1. Sub-mechanism M1

IP
  
, ,

CR
Acoording to Table 1, the desired reference joint angles have been selected as 4 4 4 . The parameters of

the PID controller areKp=diag850, 850, 850, Ki=diag250, 245, 247, Kd=diag300, 295, 298. For the

conventional SMC, the controller gain  is selected as : =diag150, 150, 150.

US
Fig. 7 shows the joint angle control since the classical PID, conventional SMC, FOPID, AFOPIDSMC, PSO-
AN
AFOPIDSMC and BA-AFOPIDSMC controllers are applied. Therefore, as you can see in Fig. 7, the maximum

overshoot and setting time in FOPID controller is lower than conventional PID controller, but it doesn’t have a

conventional trajectory tracking in comparison to SMC. In addition, The conventional sliding mode controller has
M

too much chattering. The incident of the unfavorable chattering phenomenon in the robotic system motivates high

order nonlinear dynamics and finally the closed-loop system will be unstable. Also in Fig. 7, with application of BA-
ED

AFOPIDSMC, the chattering will be removed and maximum overshoot, setting time converge to zero in a limited

time for joints 1, 2, 3, respectively. The total population and number of iteration in BA are the same in PSO. So, it is
PT

clear that with same characteristics in both BA and PSo, the performance of BA is much more stronger than PSO.

Fig. 8 shows the tracking error of joints under PID, conventional SMC, FOPID, AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC
CE

and BA-AFOPIDSMC controllers. The velocity of joints under mentioned controllers demonstrates in Fig. 9.
AC

9.2. Sub-mechanism M2

   
The desired reference joint angles are ,  ,  , in respect to Table 1. The parameters of the PID controller
4 4 4 4

are chosen as: Kp=diag850, 850, 850, 850, Ki=diag250, 245, 247, 246, Kd=diag300, 295, 298, 300.For the

SMC the controller gain  is selected as: =diag150, 150, 150, 150. Fig. 10 demonstrates that chattering will be
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

eliminated under proposed controller in comparison to others. The tracking error under BA-AFOPIDSMC controller

converges to zero, which depicted in Fig. 11. However, the proposed controller exhibits the best performance with

the reduction of maximum overshoot and setting time. The velocity of joint angles has demonstrated in Fig.12.

The motion of a Caterpillar robot has been simulated through the MATLAB program under Hybrid PID sliding

mode controller. Snapshots have demonstrated in Figs. 13 and 14.

T
IP
10. Conclusion

CR
This paper proposes a novel AFOPIDSMC using BA for control of a Caterpillar bio-inspired robot manipulator.

All of the AFOPIDSMC optimized to improve accuracy. The BA-AFOPIDSMC controller method demonstrates

US
several advantages, including the priority supplying a nonlinear feedback, provides a model-free control since

standard SMC needs information of the dynamic system, excellent trajectory tracking performance, and chattering
AN
reduction by SMC. Also, it represents an effective robustness. Additionally, the performance of BA-AFOPIDSMC

is compared with five other controllers such as PID, FOPID, SMC, AFOPIDSMC and PSO-AFOPIDSMC. The
M

simulated results confirm the advantages of the BA-AFOPIDSMC approach to the Caterpillar robot motion problem.

In future, the proposed controller approach will be applied experimentally to control of a Caterpillar robot
ED

manipulator. As well as, BA method will be compared with multi-objective Bat algorithm in order to tune

AFOPIDSMC controller parameters.

PT
CE

References

Abd-Elazim, S.M., & Ali, E.S. (2016). Load frequency controller design via BAT algorithm for nonlinear interconnected power
AC

system. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 12 (8), 166-177.

Amer, A. F., Sallam, E. A., & Elawady, W. M. (2011). Adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control using supervisory fuzzy control for 3
DOF planar robot manipulators. Applied Soft Computing, 11(8), 4943-4953.
Ayala, H. V. H., & dos Santos Coelho, L. (2012). Tuning of PID controller based on a multiobjective genetic algorithm applied
to a robotic manipulator. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8968-8974.
Bodnicki, M., & Kamiński, D. (2014). In-pipe Microrobot Driven by SMA Elements. In Mechatronics 2013 (pp. 527-533).
Springer International Publishing.
Capisani, L. M., & Ferrara, A. (2012). Trajectory Planning and Second-Order Sliding Mode Motion/Interaction Control for
Robot Manipulators in Unknown Environments. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS , 10.
Chang, W. D., & Yan, J. J. (2005). Adaptive robust PID controller design based on a sliding mode for uncertain chaotic systems.
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 26(1), 167-175.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dash, P., Saikia, L. C., & Sinha, N. (2015). Automatic generation control of multi area thermal system using Bat algorithm
optimized PD–PID cascade controller. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 68, 364-372.
Dumlu, A., & Erenturk, K. (2014). Trajectory Tracking Control for a 3-DOF Parallel Manipulator Using Fractional-Order
Control. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 61(7), 3417-3426.
Ghanbari, A., & Noorani, S. M. R. S. (2011). Optimal trajectory planning for design of a crawling gait in a robot using genetic
algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 8(1), 29-36.
Ghanbari, A., Rostami, A., Noorani, S. M. R. S., & Fakhrabadi, M. M. S. (2008). Modeling and simulation of inchworm mode
locomotion. In Intelligent Robotics and Applications (pp. 617-624). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
GirirajKumar, S. M., Jayaraj, D., & Kishan, A. R. (2010). PSO based tuning of a PID controller for a high performance drilling
machine. International Journal of Computer Applications, 1(19), 12-18.
Hashim, H. A., El-Ferik, S., & Abido, M. A. (2015). A fuzzy logic feedback filter design tuned with PSO for L1 adaptive
controller. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(23), 9077-9085.

T
Herman, P. (2005). Sliding mode control of manipulators using first-order equations of motion with diagonal mass matrix.
Journal of the Franklin Institute , 11.

IP
Hopkins, J. K., & Gupta, S. K. (2014). Design and modeling of a new drive system and exaggerated rectilinear-gait for a snake-
inspired robot. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 6(2), 021001.
Hsu, C. H., & Juang, C. F. (2013). Multi-objective continuous-ant-colony-optimized FC for robot wall-following control.

CR
Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE, 8(3), 28-40.
I. Podlubny, Fractional-order systems and PI_D_controller, IEEE Transactionson Automatic Control 44 (1999) 208–214.
Juang, C. F., Chen, Y. H., & Jhan, Y. H. (2015). Wall-following control of a hexapod robot using a data-driven fuzzy controller
learned through differential evolution. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 62(1), 611-619.
Juhász, Z., & Zelei, A. (2013). Analysis of worm-like locomotion. Mechanical Engineering, 57(2), 59-64.

2234). IEEE. US
Kim, S., Hawkes, E., Cho, K., Joldaz, M., Foleyz, J., & Wood, R. (2009, October). Micro artificial muscle fiber using NiTi spring
for soft robotics. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009. IROS 2009. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 2228-

Lan, Y. H., Gu, H. B., Chen, C. X., Zhou, Y., & Luo, Y. P. (2014). An indirect Lyapunov approach to the observer-based robust
control for fractional-order complex dynamic networks. Neurocomputing, 136, 235-242.
AN
Li, C., & Wu, T. (2011). Adaptive fuzzy approach to function approximation with PSO and RLSE. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(10), 13266-13273.
Li, H., Luo, Y., & Chen, Y. Q. (2010). A fractional order proportional and derivative (FOPD) motion controller: tuning rule and
experiments. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 18(2), 516-520.
Maldonado, Y., Castillo, O., & Melin, P. (2013). Particle swarm optimization of interval type-2 fuzzy systems for FPGA
M

applications. Applied Soft Computing, 13(1), 496-508.

Meng, X. B., Gao, X. Z., Liu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2015). A novel bat algorithm with habitat selection and Doppler effect in echoes
for optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(17), 6350-6364.
Mitić, M., & Miljković, Z. (2015). Bio-inspired approach to learning robot motion trajectories and visual control commands.
ED

Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2624-2637.

Muresan, C. I., Dulf, E. H., Copot, C., De Keyser, R., & Ionescu, C. (2015). Design and analysis of a multivariable fractional
order controller for a non-minimum phase system. Journal of Vibration and Control, 1077546315575433.
Onal, C. D., Wood, R. J., & Rus, D. (2011, May). Towards printable robotics: Origami-inspired planar fabrication of three-
dimensional mechanisms. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 4608-4613).
PT

IEEE.
Onal, C. D., Wood, R. J., & Rus, D. (2013). An origami-inspired approach to worm robots. Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on, 18(2), 430-438.
Pan, D., Gao, F., Miao, Y., & Cao, R. (2015). Co-simulation research of a novel exoskeleton-human robot system on humanoid
CE

gaits with fuzzy-PID/PID algorithms. Advances in Engineering Software, 79, 36-46.

Pedro, J. O., Dangor, M., Dahunsi, O. A., & Ali, M. M. (2014). Intelligent feedback linearization control of nonlinear
electrohydraulic suspension systems using particle swarm optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 24, 50-62.
Sathya, M. R., & Ansari, M. M. T. (2015). Load frequency control using Bat inspired algorithm based dual mode gain scheduling
of PI controllers for interconnected power system. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64, 365-
AC

374.
Seok, S., Onal, C. D., Cho, K. J., Wood, R. J., Rus, D., & Kim, S. (2013). Meshworm: a peristaltic soft robot with antagonistic
nickel titanium coil actuators. Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 18(5), 1485-1497.
Soltanpour, M. R., Khooban, M. H., & Khalghani, M. R. (2014). An optimal and intelligent control strategy for a class of
nonlinear systems: adaptive fuzzy sliding mode. Journal of Vibration and Control , 18.
Svečko, R., & Kusić, D. (2015). Feedforward neural network position control of a piezoelectric actuator based on a BAT search
algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(13), 5416-5423.
Tang, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, D., Zhao, G., & Guan, X. (2013). Fractional order sliding mode controller design for antilock
braking systems. Neurocomputing, 111, 122-130.
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Azarkish, M., & Sadeghnejad-Barkousaraie, A. (2011). A new hybrid multi-objective Pareto archive
PSO algorithm for a bi-objective job shop scheduling problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 10812-10821.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Vinagre, B. M., Monje, C. A., Calderón, A. J., & Suárez, J. I. (2007). Fractional PID controllers for industry application. A brief
introduction. Journal of Vibration and Control, 13(9-10), 1419-1429.
Wai, R. J., & Muthusamy, R. (2014). Design of Fuzzy-Neural-Network-Inherited Backstepping Control for Robot Manipulator
Including Actuator Dynamics. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 22(4), 709-722.
Wang, Y. K., Song, C. N., Wang, Z. L., Guo, C., & Tan, Q. Y. (2011). A SMA Actuated Earthworm-Like Robot. In Intelligent
Computing and Information Science (pp. 619-624). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Xin-She, Y. A New Metaheuristic Bat-Inspired Algorithm, Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NISCO
2010). Studies, 284, 65-74.
Yamashita, A., Matsui, K., Kawanishi, R., Kaneko, T., Murakami, T., Omori, H., ... & Asama, H. (2011, December). Self-
localization and 3-D model construction of pipe by earthworm robot equipped with omni-directional rangefinder. In
Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1017-1023). IEEE.
Yang, X. S. (2011). Bat algorithm for multi-objective optimisation. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, 3(5),

T
267-274.
Yu, W., & Rosen, J. (2013). Neural PID control of robot manipulators with application to an upper limb exoskeleton.

IP
Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 43(2), 673-684.
Zarrouk, D., Sharf, I., & Shoham, M. (2010, May). Analysis of earthworm-like robotic locomotion on compliant surfaces. In
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2010 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1574-1579). IEEE.

CR
Zarrouk, D., Sharf, I., & Shoham, M. (2011). Analysis of wormlike robotic locomotion on compliant surfaces. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58(2), 301-309.
Zarrouk, D., Sharf, I., & Shoham, M. (2012, May). Experimental validation of locomotion efficiency of worm-like robots and
contact compliance. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 5080-5085). IEEE.
Zarrouk, D., & Shoham, M. (2013, May). Energy requirements of inchworm crawling on a flexible surface and comparison to

and Machine Theory, 45(1), 80-90. US

earthworm crawling. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3342-3347). IEEE.
Zeinali, M., & Notash, L. (2010). Adaptive sliding mode control with uncertainty estimator for robot manipulators. Mechanism

Zeng, G. Q., Lu, K. D., Dai, Y. X., Zhang, Z. J., Chen, M. R., Zheng, C. W., ... & Peng, W. W. (2014). Binary-coded extremal
optimization for the design of PID controllers. Neurocomputing, 138, 180-188.
AN
Zhou, M., Tao, Y., Cheng, L., Liu, W. T., & Fu, X. (2013). A Biomimetic Earthworm-Like Micro Robot Using Nut-Type
Piezoelectric Motor. In Intelligent Robotics and Applications (pp. 129-135). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Zhu, H., Wang, Y., Wang, K., & Chen, Y. (2011). Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for the constrained portfolio optimization
problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 10161-10169.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Joint angles at the end of each step (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011).

1*  2* 3*  4*

Start 0 0 0 0

M1 0   

T
M2    

IP
M 2    0

CR
M1 0 0 0 0

US
AN
Table 2. Parameters of Caterpillar robot model.

Mass (m) Link length (l) Friction Contact force Time step (t)
M

Gait angle ()

Coefiction () (FR)
15gr 0.14m 45 deg 0.4 20 N 15 sec
ED

Table 3. Tuned variables of proposed controller.

Sub- Link     K I
mechanism
PT

M1 1 03891 0.9938 28.7102 13.754 5.0182 3

2 0.6467 0.8541 25.3481 11.4261 4.1708 2
CE

3 0.7825 0.8438 26.5007 11.3319 3.3289 2

M2 1 0.3672 0.9726 28.1711 13.8822 5.7238 3
2 0.5931 0.8318 25.2305 11.3134 4.2134 2
AC

3 0.7915 0.8262 27.0014 11.4186 3.9122 2

4 0.8736 0.7829 23.8210 14.2580 3.2894 2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
Fig. 1. Caterpillars locomotion (Juhász & Zelei, 2013).

US
AN
M
ED

Fig. 2. Caterpillars motion steps (Ghanbari & Noorani,

2011).
PT
CE
AC

Fig. 3. Sub-mechanism M1 (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011).

Fig. 4. Sub-mechanism M2 (Ghanbari & Noorani, 2011).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED

Fig.5. Block diagram of the adaptive robust fractional order PID sliding mode controller.
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Start

Initialize parameters

Generate initial bats populations loudness

and velocities for the λ, μ, Γ, β and K based ε

T
Determine pulse frequency for each bat

IP
Simulate the system and evaluate performance

CR
index J using Eq. 50 and evaluate fitness

US
Generate new positions for bats by adjusting frequency,
and updating velocities and positions using Eq. 49
AN
Select the bat with the best position, and generate a local
position around the selected best position of the bat
M

Randomly generate a new position for a bat

ED

Accept the position if it satisfies the conditions, and

then increase pulse rate A i and reduce ri using Eq. 49
PT

Rank the bats and determine the best one so far

CE

Yes
If iteration <n
AC

No
Output the best bats

End

Fig.6. Flow chart for a bat algorithm for tuning of adaptive robust fractional PID sliding mode controller
parameters.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 3 b 0.5
1.4 Reference Reference
2.5 1.2 PID PID
1
FOPID 0 FOPID
SMC SMC
2 0.8
AFOPIDSMC AFOPIDSMC
0.6 PSO-AFOPIDSMC PSO-AFOPIDSMC
-0.5
theta1 (rad)

theta2 (rad)
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 BA-AFOPIDSMC BA-AFOPIDSMC
1.5

1
-1
-0.7
-0.8
0.5
-0.9

T
-1.5 -1
0 -1.1
-1.2

IP
0 0.1 0.2
-0.5 -2
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

CR
c 0
Reference
-0.75 PID
-0.2
-0.8 FOPID
-0.85 SMC
-0.4 AFOPIDSMC
-0.9

US
-0.95 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
theta3 (rad)

-0.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 BA-AFOPIDSMC

-0.8
AN
-1

-1.2

-1.4
0 5 10 15
M

time (sec)

Fig. 7. Responses of joint angles (a, b, c) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC, AFOPIDSMC, SMC,
FOPID and PID controllers in Sub-mechanism M1
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 1.5 b 1.2
PID 0.4 PID
FOPID 1 FOPID
1 0.3
SMC 0.8 0.2 SMC
AFOPIDSMC 0.1 AFOPIDSMC
0.5 PSO-AFOPIDSMC 0.6 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
0
theta1 error (rad)

theta2 error (rad)

BA-AFOPIDSMC BA-AFOPIDSMC
0.4 -0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0
0.2
0.2
-0.5
0
0

-1 -0.2 -0.2

T
-0.4 -0.4
-1.5 -0.6 -0.6
0 0.2 0.4

IP
-2 -0.8
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

CR
0.6
PID
0.4 FOPID
SMC
AFOPIDSMC
0.2 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
theta3 error (rad)

US
BA-AFOPIDSMC
0

0.2
-0.2
0.15
0.1
AN
-0.4
0.05
0
-0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

-0.8
0 5 10 15
M

time (sec)

Fig. 8. Responses of tracking error of joints (a, b, c) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC, AFOPIDSMC,
SMC, FOPID and PID controllers in Sub-mechanism M1
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 80 b 20
10
PID
60 0
FOPID 10
SMC
-10 AFOPIDSMC 0
40 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
thetadot1 (rad/sec)

thetadot2 (rad/sec)
-20 BA-AFOPIDSMC -10
20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
10
-20
0 5
-30 PID
0 FOPID

T
-20
-40 SMC
0 0.1 0.2
AFOPIDSMC
-40

IP
-50 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
BA-AFOPIDSMC
-60 -60
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

CR
c 20

10

US
thetadot3 (rad/sec)

-10
6
-20
4
AN
-30 2
PID
0 FOPID
-40 SMC
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 AFOPIDSMC
-50 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
BA-AFOPIDSMC
-60
M

0 5 10 15
time (sec)

Fig. 9. Responses of angular velocity joints (a, b, c) ) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC, AFOPIDSMC,
ED

SMC, FOPID and PID controllers in Sub-mechanism M1

PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 3 b 1.5 -0.5
Reference
2 1
2.5 PID -1
FOPID 0.5
1.5
SMC -1.5
2 AFOPIDSMC 0
1
PSO-AFOPIDSMC -2

theta2 (rad)
-0.5
theta1 (rad)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 BA-AFOPIDSMC
-1
1 -1.5 Reference
PID
-2 FOPID
0.5
SMC
-2.5

T
AFOPIDSMC
0 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
-3
BA-AFOPIDSMC

IP
-0.5 -3.5
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

c d

CR
0.5 2

0
1.5

-0.5
1

US
theta3 (rad)

theta4 (rad)

-1
0.5
-1.5 Reference Reference
-0.6
PID 1 PID
-0.8 0
AN
-2 FOPID FOPID
-1 0.9
SMC SMC
-1.2
AFOPIDSMC -0.5 0.8
AFOPIDSMC
-2.5 -1.4
PSO-AFOPIDSMC PSO-AFOPIDSMC
-1.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
BA-AFOPIDSMC 0 0.1 0.2
BA-AFOPIDSMC
-3 -1
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
M

time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 10. Responses of joint angles (a, b, c, d) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC, AFOPIDSMC, SMC,
FOPID and PID controllers in Sub-mechanism M2
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 1.5 b 3
PID 1 PID
1 FOPID FOPID
SMC 2 SMC
0.5
AFOPIDSMC AFOPIDSMC
0.5 PSO-AFOPIDSMC PSO-AFOPIDSMC
1 0
theta1 error (rad)

theta2 error (rad)

BA-AFOPIDSMC BA-AFOPIDSMC
0 0.1 0.2
0
0
-0.5
0
-1
-1 -0.5

T
-1 -2
-1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3

IP
-2 -3
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

c d

CR
2.5 2
0.8 PID 0.1 PID
2 FOPID FOPID
0.6 1.5 0
SMC SMC
0.4 AFOPIDSMC
1.5 -0.1 AFOPIDSMC
0.2 PSO-AFOPIDSMC 1 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
theta3 error (rad)

US
theta4 error (rad)

BA-AFOPIDSMC -0.2 BA-AFOPIDSMC

1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.5
0
0
AN
-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec)
M

time (sec)

Fig. 11. Responses of tracking error of joints (a, b, c, d) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC,
AFOPIDSMC, SMC, FOPID and PID controllers in Sub-mechanism M2
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a 80 b 50
PID
15
60 FOPID
10 SMC
AFOPIDSMC
40 5
PSO-AFOPIDSMC
thetadot1 (rad/sec)

thetadot2 (rad/sec)
0
0 BA-AFOPIDSMC
20 0.2 0.4 0.6
30

0 20

-50 PID
10 FOPID
-20
SMC

T
0
AFOPIDSMC
-40 0 0.2 0.4
PSO-AFOPIDSMC
BA-AFOPIDSMC

IP
-60 -100
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

c d

CR
60 120
PID PID
FOPID 100 FOPID
40 SMC SMC
AFOPIDSMC 80 AFOPIDSMC
PSO-AFOPIDSMC 5 PSO-AFOPIDSMC
thetadot3 (rad/sec)

thetadot4 (rad/sec)

20

US
BA-AFOPIDSMC 60 BA-AFOPIDSMC
0
0 40
25 -5

20 20
-20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
AN
15
10
0
-40 5
-20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
-60 -40
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
M

time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 12. Responses of angular velocity joints (a, b, c, d) under BA-AFOPIDSMC, PSO-AFOPIDSMC,
AFOPIDSMC, SMC, FOPID controllers in Sub-mechanism M2
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3

y
y

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
x x x

T
0.4 0.4 0.4

IP
0.3 0.3 0.3
y

y
0.2 0.2 0.2

CR
0.1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

US
x x x

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3

AN
y

y
0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1

M

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
x x x

Fig. 13. Snapshots of motion in sub‐mechanism M1 under BA-AFOPIDSMC controller.

ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.4 0.4 0.4

y
y

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4

x x x

T
IP
0.4 0.4 0.4
y

0.2
y

y
0.2 0.2

CR
0 0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4

x

US
x x

0.4 0.4 0.4

AN
y

y
0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
M

0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4

x x x

Fig. 14. Snapshots of motion in sub‐mechanism M2 under BA-AFOPIDSMC controller.

ED
PT
CE
AC