Auto-tuning PID Controller for Robotic Manipulators
Youngjin Choi,' Yonghwan Oh,' Sang Rok Oh,3 and Wan Kyun Chung4
Intelligent System Control Research Center,
1,2,3
Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), KOREA
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), KOREA
Abstract
This paper suggests an auto-tuning method of PID
trajectory tracking controller for robotic manipulators.
In general, the PID trajectory tracking controller for
mechanical systems shows the performance limitation.
Since the control system including performance limita-
tion can not have equilibrium points, we define newly
the quasi-equilibrium region as an alternative for equi-
librium point. Also, the quasi-equilibrium region is
used as the target performance of the auto-tuning PID
trajectory tracking controller. The auto-tuning law is
derived from the direct adaptive control scheme, based
on the extended disturbance input-to-state stability.
Finally, experimental results show that the control per-
formance is enhanced by an auto-tuning method assist-
ing the achievement of target performance.
1 Introduction
Although many anto-tuning methods for PID con-
troller were proposed in [l],they were for the chemical
process control systems. Since most process systems
show very slow responses with time-delay effect, the
auto-tuning algorithms developed for process control
systems can not be directly applied t o mechanical sys-
tems. Though the performance tuning by gain changes
has brought one's interest with wide acceptance, there
still exist no generally applicable auto-tuning laws for
mechanical systems.
The PID controller for mechanical systems, especially
robotic manipulators, has been widely used with vari-
ous usages. As a matter of fact, the importance of PID
control comes from the easy applicability and clear ef-
fects of each proportional, integral and derivative con-
trol. Inspired by the extended disturbance input-to-
state stability of PID control for Lagrangian systems
including robotic manipulator, the inverse optimality
of PID controller was proved in [Z] with some condi-
'Post Doctoral Fellow, KIST, yjchoiQpostech.edu
'Research Engineer, KIST, oyh~amadeus.kist.re.kr
3Principal Research Engineer, KIST, sroh~amadeus.kist.re.kr
4Professor, POSTECH, wkchungQpostech.edu
02003 IEEE
0-7803-7896-2/03/$17.00
tions for gains. Recently, the noticeable 'square tuning'
and 'linear tuning' rules were proposed using an inverse
optimal PID controller. They were derived from the
performance prediction equation suggested in [Z]. Ac-
tually, the performance tuning by the name of square
law was suggested for the first times in 131. In this pa,
per, an auto-tuning method of an inverse optimal PID
trajectory tracking controller will be proposed by mak-
ing use of the direct adaptive control scheme based on
the extended disturbance input-to-state stability.
Recently, the direct adaptive control scheme for nonlin-
ear systems was developed in [4,5]. The direct adaptive
control is different from the indirect adaptive control
in that the control parameters are estimated directly
without intermediate calculations involving plant pa-
rameter estimates. Strictly speaking, the conventional
adaptive motion (trajectory tracking) control methods
given in [SI can be classified as the indirect adaptive
control for robotic manipulator systems because the
plant parameters are estimated t o construct a dynami-
cal model compensator. In this paper, the auto-tuning
method of an inverse optimal PID trajectory track-
ing controller will be proposed according to the direct
adaptive control scheme.
2 Automatic Performance Tuning
Since the PID controller has the performance limitation
for trajectory tracking of robotic manipulator as proved
in [Z], the auto-tuning method is devised so that it
can accomplish the target performance of PID control
system. To begin with, let us obtain the state-space
description for trajectory tracking system model in the
following section.
2.1 T r a j e c t o r y Tracking System Model
The robotic manipulator system is described by using
Lagrangian equation of motion with configuration co-
ordinates q = [ q l ,qz, . . ,qnlT E $3" as follows:
+ S ( Q )+ d ( t ) = 7,
M ( q ) 9+ c(q,q)q (1)
where M ( q ) = M T ( q ) E Pnx"is Inertia matrix,
C ( q ,q ) q E L" Coriolis and centrifugal torque vector,
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
350 Denver, Colorado June 4-6. 2003
g ( q ) E P" gravitational torque vector, T E P" the
control input torque vector and d ( t ) unknown external
disturbances. In fact, the system model (1) obtained
by Lagrangian equation of motion is for the set-point
regulation control. Here, let us define the extended
disturbance as following form:
+ +
w ( t ,e , e, S e ) = M ( q )( i i d K p e K f e )
+ +
C(q,0)( Q d K p e K I J e ) g(n) W + +
where K p , K I are diagonal positive constant matri-
ces, e = qd - q is the configuration error vector and
desired configurations (qdrq d ,q d ) are the function of
time, hence, the extended disturbance zu is the function
of time, configuration error, its derivative and integral,
since q(= qd - e ) and q ( = qd - e ) are the function
of time, configuration error and its derivative. If the
extended disturbance defined above is applied to the
set-point regulation system model (l), then the trajec-
tory tracking system model can be obtained as
M(q)i+C(q,q)s=w t,e,e, e +U,
( J>
where the control input and composite error vector are
defined by
U = -T
s = e + K p e f K ~ edt
J can be modified to
The difference and common point between the set-point
regulation system model (1) and trajectory tracking
system model (3) were explained by Remark 1-2 in [Z].
B y using the composite error vector, the inverse opti-
mal PID controller suggested in [Z] can be expressed as
following compact form:
T = (K + 7-21) s,
with three conditions:
(Cl) K , K p , K I > 0 , constant diagonal matrices
(CZ) K $ >~ K I ,
(C3) y > 0 .
First, let us obtain the state space description for tra-
jectory tracking system model (3). If we define 3n-
dimensional state vector as follows:
[ 21 = [ ] edt
EP3n,
then the state space representation of trajectory track-
ing system model (3) can be obtained by
X = A ( z ,t ) x + B ( z ,t)w + B ( I ,t)u
where
A ( I ,t ) =
1
0 I 0
0 r
-M-'CKI -M-'CKp - KI - M - -'C- K p
and
+ 0
, (2)
Second, let us investigate the characteristics of ex-
tended disturbance defined a s (2). The extended dis-
turbance w can be divided into the linear parameteriza-
tion part and external disturbances as following form:
+
w ( x , t )= Y(s,t)O d ( t ) , (6)
where the regressor matrix Y ( m ,t ) can be found by
separating a real constant parameter vector O from
(3) +
Y ( z ,t ) O = M(q)(ijd K p e K l e ) +
+C(q,@ ) ( q d + K p e + K I s e ) + g ( 9 ) ,
and the real constant parameters consist of masses and
moments of Inertia of each link. Using the extended
disturbance of (6), the state-space representation of ( 5 )
+ B ( z ,t ) d + B ( z t, ) u .
X = A ( z , t ) z+ B ( z t,) Y ( z , t ) O
(7)
Here, the regressor Y ( z , t )is not a zero matrix at
x = 0 except the case of set-point regulation control
and gravity free motion. In other words, if g ( q ) # 0
or qd # 0,qd # 0 , then Y ( x ,t ) # 0 at I = 0. Hence,
z = 0 is not an equilibrium point of (7) even when
d ( t ) = 0 , because one term B ( 0 ,t)Y(O,t ) O has the
(4)
time-varying characteristics according t o desired tra-
jectories. Actually, since the equilibrium point can not
be found for the system (7), we will introduce the con-
cept of quasi-equilibrium region in the following sec-
tion.
2.2 Quasi-Equilibrium Region
To begin with, we s s u m e that there exist no external
disturbances for system model (7), namely d = 0 . If
the inverse optimal PID controller (4) described by a
state vector as following form:
U = -(K+y-21)[K~,Kp,I]~
is applied to (7), then the closed-loop control system is
obtained as follows:
X = A,($,t)a: + B ( m , t ) Y ( x ,t ) O (8)
where
(5) A, = A -B (K + Y 2 1 )~ K KI ,p , I ] .
Proceedingsof lhe American Control Conference
351 Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2w3
Since above closed-loop system has no equilibrium xel is determined as follows:
points as explained in previous section, we will de-
fine the quasi-equilibrium region and find it for above
closed-loop system in following Theorem.
Third, the quasi-equilibrium region is obtained by its
definition as follows:
Tlieorem 1 If the quasi-equilibrium region is defined as
the interior region of ball with the largest radius among
state vectors satisfying x = 0 , then it is obtained as
following form:
where Iz.(t)i = IK,' [K+y-21]-1Y,(t)OI. 0

The size of quasi-equilibrium regioii is inversely propor-

where x.(t) means the state vector satisfying x = 0 in
tional to the integral gain K I as shown in an equation
(8) and its Euclidian norm is as follows:
(9) in Theorem 1. Also, lsrgc K and small y make the
quasi-equilibrium region small. If we are t o approach
Iz.(t)l = IK;' [ K + ~ ~ 1 ] - ~ Y , ( t ) O (9)
l
I
the quasi-equilibrium region t o the point x. = 0 using
an inverse optimal PID controller, irrespective of the
+
and Y e ( t ) e= M(qd)@d C ( q d , Q d ) Q d f g ( q d ) .
constant parameter vector 0 and desired configurations
(qd, Q d , q d ) ,then one of three conditions should be sat-
isfied: the one is that K I gain matrix goes to infinity,
another is that &gain y to zero and the other is that
the gain K to infinity. This explains indirectly why an
inverse optimal PID controller for robotic manipulators
can not bring the global asymptotic stability(GAS).
In fact, the quasi-equilibrium region of Theorem 1 has
very close relation with performance limitation of PID
controller. Ailother expression for quasi-equilibrium re-
gion will be suggested using n-dimensional composite
error in following Rcmark.

R e m a r k 1 L e t s = e + K p e + K I J e d t . Ifwemultiply
[ K IK , p , I ] b y I, in Theorem 1:
A
s.(t) = [KI,KP,~IG(~)
= [K + y - 2 1 ] - ' Y , ( t ) t l , (11)

then the quasi-equilibrium region expressed b y the com-

posite error vector is obtained as follows:

In above Remark, the quasi-equilibrium region was d o

fined using the composite error as shown in Figure 1.
Its size is dependent upon the gain K rndtrix, &gain
y and the inverse dynamics Y , ( t ) O according to desired
configurations. Actually, the quasi-equilibrium region
can be used as a criterion for target performance cho-
sen by user. Also, it indirectly proves the existence
of gains which can achieve the target performance. In
following section, we will propose an automatic per-
formance tuning method of PID controller assisting to
accomplish the target performance.
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
352 Denver. Colorado June 4-6, 2003
 Quasi-Eouiiibrium Ts2 Proof.
ing form:
First, we take Lyapunov function as follow-

1
A

V ( s ,K ,t ) = -sTMs
2
+
1
-2t T [(??(t) - K n ) r-' (??(t) - K O ) ] ,

where tr[.]means the trace of given matrix. If the auto

tuning inverse optimal PID controller (12) is applied t o
the trajectory tracking system model (3), then we can
get the time derivative of Lyapunov function along the
solution trajectory of closed-loop system as follows:

F i g u r e 1: Quasi-equilibrium region

2.3 A u t o - t u n i n g Law
Since the quasi-equilibrium region is determined by
the size of gains of PID controller, we should
know the inverse dynamics Y.(t)t9 depending on de-
sired configurations(qd, qdrqd) and dynamic parame-
ter vector(@)t o calculate the quasi-equilibrium region.
However, it is difficult to exactly identify the dynamic
parameters of a general robotic manipulator. Actually,
if they are known exactly, then the model-based con-
troller using inverse dynamics will show better perfor- Here, if the following matrix trace property is applied
mance than a PID controller. Hence, we use the con- t o above equation:
cept of target performance instead of quasi-equilibrium
region. If we determine the target performance, then
the size of quasi-equilibrium region should be adjusted
t o achieve the target performance by using the auto- then above time derivative of Lyapunov function is ar-
tuning law for gains. Here, we choose the gain matrix ranged as follows:
K in (11) as an auto-tuning parameter. The auto-
tuning law is derived from the direct adaptive control
scheme and ISS characteristics of trajectory tracking
v = -2 (Kn+ ? I )1 s- r2'J
Y2
is-m(2+
system in following Theorem.
YZ
-lW12
2
+ t T [(g(t)
- K O )(r-'k(t)- SS')] , (14)
Theorem 2 Assume that there exists the smallest con-
stant diagonal gain matrix Kn > 0 of PID controller Also, if the diagonal elements of ( I - ' k ( t ) -)'ss are
(4) guaranteeing the target performance (Cl) as follows: zeros, then the trace term of (14) becomes zero because
(g(t)- K n ) is a diagonal matrix. In other words,
the auto-tuning law (13) is derived from the following
If the auto-tuning inverse optimal PID controller: relation:

dki
if dt = r&),
- for i = 1 , . . . , n
using the auto-tuning law as following form:
then [ - Kn)
tr (g(t) (I-'f?(t) - ss')] =0

Therefore, if the auto-tuning inverse optimal PID con-

is applied to the trajectory tracking system (3) when
K n > K ( t ) ,then the closed-loop control system is ex-
tended disturbance input-to-state stable(lSS), where si
is i-th element of composite error vector s, 2; and r,
are i-th diagonal elements of the diagonal time-uarying
gain matrix g(t)> 0 and the update gain matrix
r > 0 , respectively.
353
troller (12) is applied to trajectory tracking system,
then we can get the following relation from (14):
Since the right hand side of above inequality (15) is
unbounded functions for s and w , respectively, hence,
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
Denver, Colorado June 4-6.2003
the trajectory tracking system with an auto-tuning in-
verse optimal PID controller is extended disturbance
input-to-state stable(1SS). 0

Actually, when PID controller does not achieve the tar-

get performance, namely K n > g(t), the auto-tuning
law suggested in Theorem 2 will help t o achieve the tar-
get performance. On the contrary, when K(t) K n , >
the target performance can he accomplished without an
1

auto-tuning law, namely K = 0 for K 2 Kn. Also,

since the time derivative of Lyapunov function (14) can :
he arranged as follows:
Figure 2: Target performance and non-tuning region

the ISS is also assured for 2 K n . As a matter

of fact, t,he controller (12) without an auto-tuning law
(13) is equal to the conventional inverse optimal PID
controller. In following section, we will discuss about
the criterion on whether the auto-tuning law is neces-
sary t o achieve the target performance or not.

2.4 C r i t e r i o n for Auto-tuning

To apply an auto-tuning law, we should exactly know
the gain matrix K n guaranteeing target performance
(n).However, we can not know the matrix Kn till the
experimental result satisfies the target performance as
follows:
F i g u r e 3: 3-DOF Robotic Manipulator
law has the property of a nonlinear damping. Strictly
speaking, the first term of anta-tuning PID controller
(12) means the nonlinear damping which helps t o sta-
bilize the control system against extended disturbance
and the second term is a linear controller.

hut we can calculate the size of composite error Is(r)I

according to time progress. Moreover, since the auto-
tuning law was composed of the decentralized type in
Theorem 2, we suggest the decentralized criterion for
auto-tuning as follows:
where n is the number of configuration coordinates.
As soon as the error arrives at the tuning region of
(16), the anto-tuning law should he implemented to
assist the achievement of target performance. Hence,
the target performance is somewhat different from the
non-tuning region as shown in Figure 2.
Though we do not use the constant gain matrix K n
which offers the target performance, an auto-tuning in-
verse optimal PID controller (12) results in the effect of
gain K n for lsil > LL
Jz;; as shown in an equation (15).
On the contrary, if the composite error stays in non-
3 E x p e r i m e n t a l results
To show the effectiveness of an auto-tuning inverse op-
timal PID controller, we utilized three link robot ma-
nipulator as shown in Figure 3. The desired configura-
tion profiles of Figure 4.(a) are obtained hy solving in-
verse kinematics for 6 line trajectories. Also, the given
trajectories require the fast motion (maximum velocity
% 3 r a d / s ) of robotic manipulator as shown in Figure
4.(b). First, we determine the static gains of auto-
tuning inverse optimal PID controller as K p = 201,
Kr = 1001 and y = 0.5 satisfying the design guide-
lines (Cl),(C2),(C3) in section 2. Then the controller
has the following form: for i = 1,2,3,
7, = (f?,(t) + 4 ) S ,
s, = e, +20e, + l o 0
J e,dt

tuning region of Figure 2, namely lsil 5 &, then the

auto-tuning process is stopped. For this case, we expect
that the gain updated by an auto-tuning law (13) where ri is i-th element of input torque vector r ,
will be larger than the matrix K n which brings the tar- K;(O)= 0.1 and n = 3. Second, since the composite er-
get performance. As a matter of fact, the'auto-tuning ror is approximately proportional to the configuration
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
354 Denver. Colorado June 4-6. 2003

(a) Desired configuration (h) Desired configuration
velocity : Qd
(c) Configuration error : (d) Configuration velocity
e error : e
Figure 4: Performance of auto-tuning PID controller
error with proportional constant K p . the target per-
formance can be approximately determined as follows:
where lsijt and le,Jt are the target composite error and
configuration error, respectively. For instance, if we are
t o obtain the performance of le,/t < 0.02 r a d for each
driving axis, then the target performance should be
determined as R = 1.0 by (17). Also, the update gain
r = 1000 was used for the experiment. Figure 4.(c)
and (d) show experimental results such as the config-
uration error and its velocity error. In figures, we can
see that the errors are large at initial time and errors
are reduced till target performance can be achieved by
an automatic gain tuning. As a matter of fact, the
automatic gain tunings are executed at the exterior of
two dotted lines of Figure 5.(a). After the auto-tuning
ic finished, the tuned gains arrived at 1?1 = 136.98,
K z = 65.60 and K3 = 6.83 as we can see in Figure
-
5.(b). To see the tuning process in detail, the horizon-
tal ranges of 0 1 second of Figure 5.(a) and (b) are
enlarged as shown in that figure (e) and (d). The auto-
tuning of first axis is started at 0.11 second and ended
at 0.26 second because the error goes over the dotted
line ( l / & = 0.408) for the first time as shown in Fig-
ure 5.(c). Also, the error of second axis goes over the
dotted linc from 0.13 to 0.24 second. Finally, since the
error of third axis goes over the dotted line downward
twice, the auto-tuning is implemented twice as shown
in Figure 5.(d). The experimental result of Figure 5.(a)
shows that the target performance is achieved after 0.6
second when the auto-tuning is finished.
355
TimeIsl Iimelsl
(a) Composite error: s (h) Auto-tuned gains:
(E)
-
(c) Composite error (s) (d) Auto-tuned gains
for 0 1s for 0 1s -
Figure 5 : Composite error and auto-tuned gains
4 C o n c l u d i n g Remarks
In this paper, the quasi-equilibrium region was defined
to guarantee the existence of controller gain achieving
target performance. Also, we proposed the auto-tuning
inverse optimal PID controller assisting the achieve-
ment of target performance. Finally, we showed the
validity of auto-tuning law through the experiment.
References
[l] c. C. Yu, Autotuning of PID COntTolkTS: Relay
Feedback Approach, Springer, 1999.
[2] Y . Choi, W. K. Chung, and I. H. Suh, “Perfor-
mance and H m optimality of PID trajectory tracking
controller for Lagrangian systems,” IEEE Trans. on
Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 857-869,
Dec. 2001.
131 J. Park and W. K. Chung, “Design of a robust
H, PID control for industrial manipulators,” naris.
ASME J. of Dyn. Syst., Meas. and Contr., pp. 803-
812, 2000.
[4] W. M. Haddad and T. Hayakawa, “Direct adap-
tive control for nonlinear systems with bounded energy
C2 disturbances disturbances,” IEEE Conf. on Decz-
sion and Control, pp. 2419-2423, 2000.
[5] V. Chellaboina, W. M. Haddad, and
T. Hayakawa, “Direct adaptive control for non-
linear matrix second-order dynamical systems with
state-dependent uncertainty,” PTOC.of the Amencan
Control Conference, pp. 4247-4252, 2001.
(61 R. Ortega and M. W. Spang, “Adaptive motion
control of rigid robots: A tutorial,” IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, pp. 1575-1584, 1988.
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
Denver, Colorado June 4-6.2W3