2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
A New Cartesian Controller for Robot Manipulators
Pablo Sainchez-Sanchez
F C. E. \ Posgrado en Automatizacion
Autonomous University of Puebla
Puebla, MEXICO
lepable@ece.buap.mx
Abstract- The main objective of this paper is to propose a
new controller for robot manipulators on Cartesian Coordinates
with formal confirmation of stability, to verify its performance
comparing it with the Cartesian PD Controller. In this paper
we describe an experimental Cartesian robot for research and
development of robot control algorithms. This system allows the
development and easy test of Cartesian Control strategies on
three degrees of freedom. The functionality of this system is
explained via real-time experimental results of a new position
Cartesian Control algorithm with global asymptotic stability of
the closed-loop system.
Index Terms- Cartesian Controller, Jacobian Transposed
Controller, Energy Shaping, Artificial Potential Energy, DRILL-
BOT, Performance Index.
I. INTRODUCTION
Industrial robots are basically positioning and handling de-
vices. A useful robot is one that is able to control its
movement and the forces it applies to its environment. To
control requires the knowledge of a mathematical model
and of some sort of experience to act on the model. The
mathematical model is obtained from the basic physical laws
governing the robot's dynamics [1].
This work is focused in the Position Control for robots
manipulators using Cartesian Controllers, because the robot
manipulators move freely in their work space which is inter-
preted by the user like Cartesian Space, the goal of position
control is to move the manipulator's end-effector from initial
position qo to a fixed desired target qd (constant in time).
The Joint Control is used to determine the characteristics of
the Cartesian Control using the Jacobian Transposed Matrix
J(q)T, contribution of S. Arimoto in 1981, eliminating the
possible singularity [2].
Robot manipulators offer interesting theoretical and practi-
cal challenges to control researchers due to nonlinear and
multivariable nature of their dynamical behavior. From a
practical point of view, the real time implementation of robot
controllers can be an expensive project and a time consuming
activity if an adequate test system is not available [3]. A great
amount of works in cartesian control algorithms for robot
0-7803-8912-3/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
Fernando Reyes-Cortes
F C. E. \ Posgrado en Automatizacion
Autonomous University of Puebla
Puebla, MEXICO
freyes @ ece. buap. mx
manipulators illustrate their results by simulations and only
a few have been accomplish whit experimental results [3].
In this work we describe a prototype for research and
development of robot cartesian control algorithms with open
architecture which allows the development and easily expe-
rimental test of cartesian control strategies on a servomotor
cartesian robot manipulator with three degrees of freedom.
Beside experimental system, we present a theoretical result,
we propose a particular case of nonlinear cartesian controller
for position control. This controller preserves global asymp-
totic stability of the closed loop system, it is supported by a
rigorous stability analysis including the full Lagrangian robot
dynamics in the closed loop.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
dynamics of rigid robots and its main property. In Section
3 we describe a proposed controller, the control problem
formulation and the main stability analysis. The experimen-
tal system description and experimental results on a three
degrees of freedom in Section 4. Finally, we offer some
concluding remarks in Section 5.
II. ROBOT DYNAMICS
For Cartesian Control design purposes, and to design better
controllers, it is necessary to reveal the dynamic behavior
of the robot via a mathematical model obtained from basic
physical laws. We use Lagrangian Dynamics [4] to obtain
the describing mathematical equations.
We begin our development with the general Lagrange equa-
tion of motion [1], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Consider then Lagrange's
equations for a conservative system as given by:
d [L(q,0 1_ - L(q, T-f(T,q) (1)
where q, q C RThXl are vectors of joint displacements and
velocities respectively, f (T, x) c RThxl is the friction vector
and the Lagrangian C(q, 4) is the difference between the
kinetic and potential energies [1], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],
12(q, C) = k(q,C) -11(q). (2)
3536
It is well known that in the absence of friction and other The equations (9) are called the Hamiltonian equations of
disturbances, the dynamics of a serial n-link rigid robot can Motion [14]. The following energy balance immediately
be written as [10], [11], [12]: follows from (9):

M(q)f + C(q, q)q + g(q) T

(3) d&H (q, P) = (&((q, ) T) +(1 H (q p)T (10)
where q, q, C R xl are vectors of joint displacements, dt Oq O11p
velocities and acceleration respectively, M(q) C RX"T is
the symmetric positive definite manipulator inertial matrix, given the result [14]:
C(q,q) c R"X' is the matrix of Centripetal and Coriolis
torques and g(q) C RXx 1 is the vector of gravitational torques W = dH (q, p) _TT
=
obtained as the gradient of the robot potential energy. dt (1 1)
Expressing that the increase in energy of the system is equal
Inverse kinematics is one of the functions basic to robot ma- to the supplied work (conservation of energy). When forces
nipulator control systems. Cartesian position and orientation act on a mechanism, work (in the technical sense) is done if
x of the end-effector is described as a function f of the joint the mechanism moves through a displacement [15]. Work
variable q [13]: is defined as a force acting through a distance and is a
x f (q). (4) scalar with units of energy. Since work has units of energy
Various approaches to solve the inverse problem of (4) have it must be the same measured in any set of generalized
been introduced, either by determining f-1 symbolically: coordinates. Specifically, we can equate the work done in
Cartesian terms with the work done in joint space terms [15].
q f-(x), (5) In the multidimensional case, work is the dot product of a
vector force or torque and a vector displacement [15].
or by utilizing the partial derivation of (4):
W =F± (12)
x= J(q)q, (6) to relate equation (6), (11) and (12) we obtained:
we obtained to the inverse Jacobian matrix:
T J(q) T (13)
q J(q) - 1 x (7) where T is the vector of applied torques, J(q) is the Jacobian
After some operations we can relate the Joint space with the Matrix and S is the Force applied at the end-effector. The
Cartesian space, obtaining the table I. equation (13) is called Jacobian Transposed Controller [2].
Replacement the Jacobian Transposed Controller, equation
TABLE I
(13), on the Dynamic Model, equation (3), and using the
JOINT COORDINATED TO CARTESIAN
equations described in the Table I, we obtain:
Joint Coordinated Cartesian Coordinated M(x)x + C(x, x)x + g(x) 'Tx, (14)
:: J(q)-4jJ(q) ::

4 =:: J(q) - 1 vc _ J(q) -1 j(q) J(q) - 1-xca:::= J(q) q + J(q) q where:

Whereas the Hamilton system and the vector of generalized M(x) =J(q)-'M(q) J(q) -' (15)
momenta p [PI,... , Pk], defined for any Langrangian C(x, x) =J(q) -T[CJ-1 -M(q)J-1JJ-1] (16)
1(q,q) as p = (q i) [14], is simply given by: g(x) J(q)-Tg(q) (17)
Tx = (18)
p= M(q)C, (8) we obtained a Dynamic Model representation on Jacobian
and by defining the state vector, [q1,.
c. , P1 ,...* k, Transposed terms.
the k second order equation (1) transform into 2k first-order
equations: It is important to keep in mind that we assume that the
manipulator's end-effector interacts with an infinitely stiff
[a7H(q, p)] = aI(q, q) + OU(q) = M(q)-1p = environment hence, its motion is constrained to a smooth
&7H(q, p) + (9)
(n - m) dimensional submanifold 1, defined by q(q)
O where the function : Rn > Rm is at least twice
Oq continuously differentiable this way we assume that there
where 1t(q, p) is the total energy of the system. exists an operating region Q c RT defined as Q Q1 x Q2,

3537
where Q, is a convex subset of R'-', Q2 is an open We use the following Cartesian control scheme:
subset of R'. We also assume the existence of a function
Tx= V1(kp,;) - fv(kV, x) + g(x) + f (Tx, x) (24)
k, : Q, >- Rm twice continuosly differentiable, k1 C C2,
such as O(q1,k(q1)) 0 for all ql C Ql. Under these where x is the position error in Cartesian coordinates,
conditions, the vector q2 can be uniquely defined by the l(kp, xv) is the Artificial Potential Energy described by:
vector qI such that q2 k(q1) for all ql C Ql. Notice
that under this assumption the Jacobian J(q) is non singular l1(k ,f~) _ f(D)Tkpf
2
(x) (25)
only V q c Q that is to say J(q)-1 3 V q c Q [16].
and the term f (kr, ±) is the Derivative Action.
Although the equation of motion (14) is complex, it has
several fundamental properties which can be exploited to fa- We use the following Lyapunov scheme:
cilitate control system design. We use the following important
properties: V(x, x) 2TM(X)
2
+ (kx x). (26)
Property 1: Considering all revolute joints, the inertial
matrix M(x) is lower and upper bounded by [14]: The Energy Shaping Methodology consist in found a
l(kx, xv) function to fulfill the next Lyapunov's conditions:
1-ti(X)-l <- M(X) <- 1-t2(X)-l (19)
V(0,0) 0 V± ,x = 0
(27)
where I stands for the m x n Identity matrix. We should V(x, x) > O
V x, xv4 0
consider that M(x) it is symmetric positive definite inertial and to do the derivation of the Lyapunov equation [20] we
matrix because this defined in the way QTAQ where A is obtain,
symmetrical matrix and Q J(q)-1 [17].
V(±. ) ±TJ2I_
±TM(X)i + i 1(l
) _
)tr2 &l(kp,d~)T
±'(k,
x , (28)
Property 2: The matrix JT [M(x) - 2Cm(x, x)]x _ 0
is skew-symmetric, that is [14], fulfill the condition:
M(x) = C(x, x) + C(x, X)T (20) V(x, x) < O, (29)
verify asymptotical stability with LaSalle theorem:
Furthermore, the matrix C(x, x) is linear on x and bou
on x, hence for some k, c R+ [14]: V(x, x) < 0. (30)
JjC(x, x) j < kc(x) II±Q. (21) Consider the next cartesian controllers schemes.
Property 3: The generalized gravitational forces vector A. Cartesian PD Controller

g(x) _ &l(x)
Ox
(22)
satisfies [14]:
&g(x) < k
Ox
for some kg C R+, where 1(x) is the potential energy
expressed in the cartesian space and is supposed to be
bounded from below [14].
III. CARTESIAN CONTROLLERS
In this section we present our main result concerning the
stability analysis of the proposed Cartesian controllers. Now
we are in position to formulate the Cartesian control problem.
Typically we propose controllers using the Energy Shaping
on Joint Coordinates [3], [10], [11], [12], [14], [18], [19],
[20], now we use this methodology on Cartesian Space. The
Energy Shaping is a controller method design, this method
considerate the Dynamic Model without friction and others
disturbances [9], [10], [11], [12], [18], [19], [20], [21].
,Tx JT[KPX - K,] + g(x) + f (Tx, x) (31)
where x denotes the position error on Cartesian Coordinates,
Kp, K, are the proportional and derivative gains. The con-
trol problem can be stated as that of selecting the design
matrices Kp and K, such that the position error x vanishes
asymptotically, i.e. limtOji(t) 0 c RTn. The closed-loop
system equation obtained by combining the Cartesian robot
model, equation (14), and control scheme, equation (31), can
be written as:
d [2 _ [ - x
dt [JH [M(x)- [Kpx;-- KvX~- C(x, x~)x] (
which is an autonomous differential equation and the origin
of the state space is its unique equilibrium point.
To carry out the stability analysis of equation (32), we
proposed the following Lyapunov function candidate based

3538
in the Energy Shaping Methodology [12], [20] oriented on in the Energy Shaping Methodology [12], [20] oriented on
Cartesian space: Cartesian space:

V(x,x) =T 2)
) +
T2' (33) 1//n(cosh(dxv )) 1T
The first term of V(x, xr) is a positive definite function with xM(X)± +
x 1/ln(cosh(dx2))
respect to x because M(x) is a positive definite matrix. The kXX 2
second one of Lyapunov function candidate (33) is a positive
definite function with respect to position error x, because Kp -V l-n(cos~h(xn)
, (40)
is a positive definite matrix. Therefore V(x, xr) is a globally
positive definite and radially unbounded function. VI n(cosh( )) 1
14n(cosh(dx2))
The time derivative of Lyapunov function candidate (33)
along the trajectories of the closed-loop (32), V ln(c~osh(-;xn))
V(x, (x) + X AXX~
2 + (~ (4
(34)
the first term of V(x, xr) is a positive define function with
and after some algebra and using the property 2 it can be respect to x because M(x) is a positive definite matrix. The
written as: second one of Lyapunov function candidate (40) is a positive
V(x, x) =-xTKV_ < 0, (35) definite function with respect to position error x, because Kp
which is a globally negative semidefinite function and there- is a positive define matrix. Therefore V(x, xr) is a globally
fore we conclude stability of the equilibrium point. In order to positive definite and radially unbounded function.
prove asymptotic stability we exploit the autonomous nature
of closed-loop (32) to apply the LaSalle Invariance Principle: The time derivative of Lyapunov function candidate (40)
V(x, x) < 0. (36) along the trajectories of the closed-loop (39),
In the region:
V(x xV) =TM(x)y + 2
Q
=
{[Jc Rn: V(;r±) 0} (37) +
~//ln(cosh(xl )) l
1/n(cosh(d;i)) 1
(41)
the unique invariant is [ ±T] T 0 c R2T. 1Vn(cosh(dn2))) [ tanh ]

B. Cartesian f9 Controller lln(c~osh(-;~))

1

Tx JT [K,3 -
K,1] + g(x) + f (Tx, x) (38) and after some algebra and using the property 2 it can be
where x denotes the position error on Cartesian Coordinates, written as:
Kp, K, are the proportional and derivative gains, and Xx =
sinh(xr) /1- tanh(xv), Xx = sinh() /1 - tanh(x). sinh(x± ) 1-tanh2(xl)
The closed-loop system equation obtained by combining the sinh(±2) 21-tanh (x2)
Cartesian robot model, equation (14), and control scheme, V(±,fPz)=- TKV <0
equation (38), can be written as:
sinh(±n) a1- tanh2 (±) -((42)
dt [H [M(x)-l [Kp_ -Kv4- C(x,±)l (39) which is a globally negative semidefinite function and there-
which is an autonomous differential equation and the origin fore we conclude stability of the equilibrium point. In order to
of the state space is its unique equilibrium point. prove asymptotic stability we exploit the autonomous nature
of closed-loop (39) to apply the LaSalle Invariance Principle:
To carry out the stability analysis of equation (39), we
proposed the following Lyapunov function candidate based V(x,fx) < 0. (43)

3539
In the region
{[ CR V(xii,x) = 0} (44)
the unique invariant is [T ±T] T
0 c R2T.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
We have designed and build an experimental system for
research of Cartesian robot control algorithms and currently
it is a turn key research system for developing and validation
of Cartesian control algorithms for robot manipulators. The
experimental system is a servomotor robot manipulator with
three degrees of freedom moving in the three dimensional
space as it is shown in the figure 1.
Fig. 1. Experimental Prototype. "DRILL-BOT'
The structure are made of stainless iron, direct drive shaft
with servomotors from Reliance Electronics. Advantages of
this type of drive shaft include high torque. The servomotor
has an Incremental Encoder from Hewlett Packard.
The motors used in the experimental cartesian robot are the
model E450 [450oz - in.]. The servos are operated in torque
mode, so the motors acts a reference if torque signal. Position
information is obtained from incremental encoders located on
the motors, which have a resolution of 1024000 p \rev.
3540
A. Experimental Results
To support our theoretical developments, this section presents
an experimental comparison of two position controllers on
Cartesian Coordinates on three degrees of freedom Cartesian
robot manipulator. To investigate the performance among
controllers, they have been classified as TPD for the simple
PD controller and Tp represent our propose controller, both
on Cartesian space. The experimental comparison consists
in finding which is the better performance among evaluated
controllers by using the scalar-valued £2 norm. A smaller
£2 represents lesser position error and thus is the better
performance [22], [23], [24], [25].
An experiment of position control has been designed to
compare the performance of the controllers on a Cartesian
robot. The experimental consist of moving the manipulator's
end-effector from its initial position to a fixed desired target.
For the present application the desired cartesian positions
were chosen as: [xd1, Xd2, xd31T [0.785, 0.615, 0*349]T
[meters], where Xdl, Xd2 and Xd3 represent the x, y and z
axes of the prototype. The initial positions and velocities
were set to zero (for example a home position). The friction
phenomena were not modelled for compensation purpose.
That is, all the controllers did not show any type of friction
compensation. Nevertheless, in spite of the presence of
the friction, phenomenon that doesn't have a mathematical
structure to be modelled. The evaluated controllers have been
written in C language. The sampling rate was executed at 2.5
ms. The Cartesian P9 Controller desired position is depicted
in figure 2, the desired positions in this experiment are
Xdl 0.785, xd2 0.615 and Xd3 0.349. We can observe
that the position error get to zero in smaller time, that is to
say, the controller obtains the desired position, figure 3. The
goal of position control is to move the manipulator's end-
effector from initial position xo to a fixed desired target xd
(constant in time), that is to say, to make the position error
x 0.
B. Performance Index
Robot manipulators are very complex mechanical system,
due to the nonlinear and multivariable nature of the dynamic
behavior. For this reason, in the robotics community there
are not well-established criteria for proper evaluation of
controllers for robots. However, it is accepted in practice to
compare the performance of controllers by using the scalar-
valued £2 norm as an objective numerical measure for an
entire error curve. The £2 [X] norm measures the root-mean-
square average of the x position error, which is given by:
t
£2 [X] = t 2dt (45)
to
where to, t c R+ are the initial and final times, respectively.
A smaller £2 represents lesser position error and it indi- To average out stochastic influences, the data presentation in
cates the best performance of the evaluated controller. this figure represents the mean of root-mean-square position
error vector norm of ten runs. For clarity, the data presented
in figure 4 are compared with respect to the £2 norm of
PD controller. The results from one run to another were
observed to be less 1% of their mean, which underscore the
repeatability of the experiments. In general, the performance
of the PD controller is improved roughly 21.6% by its
counterpart, the proposed controller as show in figure 4. TPD
has a 2[fpPD = 0.216 [degrees] over the range of the
experimental results, while the performance indexes for Tp
are 0.123 [degrees].
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To accomplish the experiments we consider the following
Fig. 2. Position of the Cartesian b Controller Graphic.
desired positions: [xdj, Xd2, xd31]T [0.785, 0.615, 0.349]T
[meters]. As before, these indexes represent the means of ten
runs. Figure 4 confirms that the proposed controller improves
the performance obtained by PD controller.
[In]
[

07
V. CONCLUSION
0.6
X'2
In this paper we have described an experimental equipment
0.5
for testing cartesian robot controllers with open architecture
0A4
which allows the programming of a general class of cartesian
robot controllers. The goal of the test system is to support
0.3
the research as well as to develop new cartesian control
0,2 algorithms for robot manipulators. Our theoretical results are
0.1- the propose of cartesian controllers. We have shown global
0 1 2 3 4
asymptotic stability for Lyapounov functions. Experiments on
cartesian robot manipulator have been carried out to show the
Fig. 3. Position Error of the Cartesian b Controller Graphic. stability and performance for the cartesian controllers.

A thorough analysis of obtained experimental data suggests

the following:
[Dergee.s]
0.5 n
. Not that the new algorithm improves the performance
x obtained by PD controller. The family of proposed
(D 04- controller effectively exploits its exponential capabili-
03- ty in order to enhance the position error, having a
0
C

02-
0.216 short transient phase and a small steady-state error.
Fast convergence can be obtained (faster response).
0.123 Consequently, the control performance is increased in
M0.20- comparison with the aforementioned controller.
. Nevertheless, in spite of the presence of the friction,
phenomenon that doesn't have a mathematical structure
TPD T to be modelled, signals of position error are acceptably
Cartesian Controllers small for the proposed family.

Fig. 4. Performance Index.
The overall results are summarized in Figure 4 which in-
cludes the performance indexes for the analyzed controllers.
The problem of position control for robot manipulators can
correspond to the configuration of a simple pick and place
robot. For example, when the robot reaches the desired
point, it can return to the initial position. If this process is
repetitive (robot plus controller), then it would be a simple
pick and place robot used for manufacturing systems. Other

3541
applications could be: palletizing materials, press to press
transfer, windshield glass handling, automotive components
handling, cookie and bottle packing. In those applications,
the time spent to transfer a workpiece from one station to
next is still high. In the case of our prototype, DRILL-BOT,
it becomes evident the use of the position control due to
the coordinates in which a bore is desired. It is important to
observe that after each perforation carried out by the robot
it returns to their Initial position.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank the CONACyT support
granted through the Scholarship for Studies of Master #
177167. Also to thank the Dr. Fernando Reyes Cortes their
valuable support in the elaboration of the prototype described
in this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] A. K. Becjzy, "Robot Arm Dynamics and Control" (Pasadena, CA:
Technical Memo 33-669, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1976).
[2] M. Takegaki and S. Arimoto, "A New Feedback Method for Dynamic
Control of Manipulators", Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 102(2), 1981, 119-125.
[3] F. Reyes, J. Cid and C. Campuzano, "Development of an Experimental
Platform with open architecture for Robots Manipulators", Proceedings
of the IASTED International Conference Modeling and Simulation,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1999, 77-80.
[4] A. Loria, R. Kelly, R. Ortega and V. Santibaiez, "On Output Feedback
Control of Euler-Lagrange systems under input constraints", IEEE
Transactions on Control, 42(8), 1996, 1138-1142.
[5] H. Goldstein, "Classical Dynamics" (Reading: MA. Addison-Wesley,
1950).
[6] A. Barrientos, L. Peniin, C. Balaguer and R. Aracil, "Fundamentos de
Rob6tica" (Madrid: McGraw Hill, 1997).
[7] L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, "Modeling and Control of Robot Ma-
nipulators" (Napoles: McGraw Hill, 1996).
[8] R. Kelly, R. Haber, R. Haber-Guerra and F. Reyes, "Lyapunov Stable
Control of Robot Manipulators: A Fuzzy Self-Tunning Procedure",
Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 5(4), 1999, 313-326.
[9] R. Reyes-Ruiz, F. Reyes-Cort6s and P. Sanchez-Sanchez, "A New
Position Regulator for Robot Manipulator", Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Robotics and Automation. Quer6taro,
M6xico, 2004, 344-346.
[10] F. Reyes and C. Campuzano, "PD-Type Controller with Nonlinear Pro-
porcional Gain for Robot Manipulators", XX Congreso Internacional
Acade'mico de Ingenieria Electr6nica, Puebla, M6xico, 1998, 357-360.
3542
[11] R. Kelly, V. Santibanez and F. Reyes, "On Saturated-proportinal
derivative feedback with adaptive gravity compensation of robot ma-
nipulators", International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal
Processing, 10(4-5), 1996, 465-479.
[12] R. Kelly, "Regulation of Manipulators in Generic Task Space: An E-
nergy Shaping Plus Damping Injection Approach", IEEE Transactions
on Robotics and Automation, 15(2), 1999, 381-386.
[13] G. Schreiber and G. Hirzinger, "Singularity Consistent Inverse Kine-
matics by enhancing the Jacobian Transpose", Advances in Robot
Kinematics: Analysis and Control. Wolfgangsee, Germany, 1998, 209-
216.
[14] A. Loria and R. Ortega, "Force/Position Regulation for Robot Mani-
pulators with Unmeasurable Velocities and Uncertain Gravity", Auto-
matica, 36(6), 1996, 939-943.
[15] J. J. Craig, "Introduction to Robotics Mechanics and Control" (New
York: Addison-Wesley, 1989).
[16] P. Sanchez-Sanchez, F. Reyes-Cort6s and R. Reyes-Ruiz, "Cartesian
Controllers for Robot Manipulators", Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Robotics and Automation. Quer6taro, M6xico, 2004,
347-351.
[17] A. G. Kurosch, "Curso de Algebra Superior" (Moscu: MIR, 1968).
[18] F. Reyes and R. Kelly, "Experimental Evolution of Identification
Schemes on a Direct Drive Robot", Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Leuven, Bel-
gium, 1998, 2327-2332.
[19] F. Reyes and R. Kelly, "On Parameter Identification of Robot Mani-
pulator", Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999, 1910-
1915.
[20] R. Kelly, and V. Santivanez, "A class of global regulators with bounded
actions for robot manipulators", Proceedings of the 35th Conference
on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, 1996, 3382-3387.
[21] R. Kelly, V. Santibanez and F. Reyes, "A Class of Adaptive Regulators
for Robot Manipulator", International Journal ofAdaptive Control and
Signal Processing. 12(1), 1998, 41-62.
[22] L. L. Whitcomb, A. A. Rizzi and D. E. Koditschek, Comparative
experiments with a new adaptive controller for robot arms, IEEE
Transaction on Robotics and Automation, 9(1), 1993, 59-69.
[23] H. Berghuis, H. Roebbers and H. Nijmeijer, Experimental comparison
of parameter estimation method in adaptive robot control, Automatica,
31(9), 1995, 1275-1285.
[24] A. Jaritz and M. Spong, An experimental comparison of robust control
algorithms on a direct drive manipulator, IEEE Transaction on Control
Systems Technology, 4(6), 1996, 363-368.
[25] B. De Jager and J. Banens, Experimental evaluations of robot con-
trollers, Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Decision and Control.
Lake Buena Vista, Fl, USA, 1994, 363-368.