Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483 www.elsevier.

com/locate/robot

Application of neural generalized predictive control to robotic manipulators with a cubic trajectory and random disturbances
F. Temurtas a, , H. Temurtas b , N. Yumusak a
a Sakarya University, Department of Computer Engineering, 54187 Adapazari, Turkey b Dumlupnar University, Department of Electric and Electronic Engineering, 41470 Kutahya, Turkey

Received 21 April 2003; received in revised form 30 July 2004; accepted 28 September 2005 Available online 20 December 2005

Abstract In this study, a single-input single-output (SISO) neural generalized predictive control (NGPC) was applied to a three-joint robotic manipulator with a cubic trajectory and random disturbances. The SISO generalized predictive control (GPC) was also used for comparison. Modelling of the dynamics of the robotic manipulator was carried out by using the LagrangeEuler equations. The frictional effects, random disturbance, carrying and falling load effects were added to the dynamics model. The cubic trajectory principle is used for position reference and velocity reference trajectories. A simulation program was prepared by using Delphi 5.0. All computations for the manipulator dynamics model, GPC SISO, and NGPC SISO were done on a PC with 733 MHz CPUs using this program. The parameter estimation algorithm used in the GPC SISO is Recursive Least Squares. The minimization algorithm used in the NGPC SISO is NewtonRaphson. According to the simulation outcome, the results from the NGPC SISO algorithm were better than those from the GPC SISO algorithm. And these results showed also that the NGPC SISO reduced the inuence of the load changes and disturbances. This means that the NGPC SISO algorithm combines the advantages of predictive control and the neural network. c 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Robotic manipulator control; Generalized predictive control; Neural generalized predictive control; Trajectory planning

1. Introduction In recent years, robotic manipulators have been used increasingly in the manufacturing sector and in applications involving hazardous environments for increasing productivity, efciency, and worker safety. The use of conventional linear control techniques limits the basic dynamic performance of manipulators. The dynamic characteristics of general spatial manipulators are highly nonlinear functions of the positions and velocities of the manipulator elements. And the dynamic performance characteristics of manipulators are degraded by the inertial properties of the objects being manipulated. Generally, it is not easy to design a linear control system which will yield uniformly high system performance over a wide range of manipulator tasks [1,2]. General purpose robotic manipulators are required to move along specied trajectories and perform different tasks under
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 5322075633; fax: +90 2643460351.

E-mail address: temurtas@sakarya.edu.tr (F. Temurtas). 0921-8890/$ - see front matter c 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.013

varying operating conditions. For controlling the manipulator, the problem is to compute appropriate actuator commands required to coordinate individual joint rates to produce the desired motion, i.e. to follow a particular trajectory. Dynamic control of the manipulator (robot arm) is realized by generating the necessary inputs (torque/voltage) which supply the motion of the manipulator joints according to desired position and velocity references and applying these inputs to the joints. However, the equations which give the dynamic behaviors of the manipulator are second-order nonlinear differential equation sets and they have high level interaction between them. This condition makes manipulator control difcult. Because of the high level interactions between joints and the nonlinear dynamics, industrial manipulators which use conventional linear control systems cannot be used over certain velocity limits and that is why productivity is limited. Furthermore, the needs of increasing performance also require improved manipulator techniques [13]. One of the applied manipulator control techniques is Generalized Predictive Control (GPC) [4,5]. GPC is known

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

75

to control non-minimum phase plants, open-loop unstable plants and plants with variable or unknown dead time. It is also robust with respect to modeling errors, over- and underparameterization, and sensor noise [6,7]. GPC was originally developed with the linear plant predictor model which leads to a formulation that can be solved analytically. If a nonlinear model is used, a nonlinear optimization algorithm is necessary. This affects the computational efciency and performance with which the control inputs are determined. For nonlinear plants, the ability of GPC to make accurate predictions can be enhanced if a neural network is used to learn the dynamics of the plant instead of standard nonlinear modeling techniques [5, 810]. Applications of neural networks to nonlinear control systems can basically be divided into two classes: control systems where the controller itself is a neural network and model based control systems where the model of the nonlinear dynamic system is a neural network. The former methods largely make use of some form of inverse neural model, which often gives rise to severe stability and robustness problems in the control of nonminimum phase systems, or systems whose inverses are close to the stability boundary [11]. In this study, two types of model based control strategy originating from the idea of predictive control are applied and described. The rst one is generalized predictive control [6,7] and the other one is neural generalized predictive control (NGPC) [810]. 2. Robotic manipulator model The a priori information needed for manipulator control analysis and manipulator design is a set of closed form differential equations describing the dynamic behavior of the manipulators. Various approaches are available for formulating the robot arm dynamics, such as LagrangeEuler, NewtonEuler and Recursive Lagrange [12,13]. The conguration of the three-joint robotic manipulator model and its main dimensions can be seen in Fig. 1. The three-joint robotic manipulator model and the constitution of the (x , y , z ) coordinates of the end point in the manipulator model are given in Fig. 2. The equations which were used for the calculation of the (x , y , z ) coordinates in the manipulator model are given as (1)(3): x = (l1 + l2 cos 2 + l3 sin(2 + 3 )) cos 1 y = (l1 + l2 cos 2 + l3 sin(2 + 3 )) sin 1 z = l2 sin 2 l3 cos(2 + 3 ) (1) (2) (3)

Fig. 1. Conguration of the three-joint robotic manipulator model and its main dimensions.

where i is generalized torque applied to the system from joint i , L is the Lagrangian function ( L = K P ; K : total kinetic energy of the manipulator; P : total potential energy of the i is the manipulator), i is the angular position of joint i , and rst-order derivative of i . The equations which were used for the calculation of the total kinetic energy of the manipulator are given as (5)(7):
3

K =
i =1

Ki dKi

(5) (6)

Ki = dKi =

1 2 (x +y i2 + z i2 )dm (7) 2 i where dm is the mass of a constant point inside limb i and xi , yi , and z i are the coordinates of this point, as seen in Fig. 2. The equations which were used for the calculation of the total potential energy of the manipulator are given as (8)(11):
3

P=
i =1

Pi

(8) (9) (10) (11) Ai 0

i Pi = m i gr0 i r0

Ai 0 ri

ri = (xi , yi , z i , 1)T

where l1 , l2 , and l3 are the lengths of limb 1, limb 2, and limb 3 respectively and 1 , 2 , and 3 are the angular positions of joint 1, joint 2, and joint 3 respectively. In this study, LagrangeEuler is used for dynamics modeling of the three-joint robotic manipulator. The LagrangeEuler equation of motion is d dt L i L = i i (4)

where m i is the mass of limb i , g is the gravity vector, is the 2 transition matrix. |g | = 9.8062 m/s . The main parameters of the manipulator model can be seen in Table 1. The equations which were used for the calculation of the friction effects are given as (12) and (13): 1 1 ) K 1 sgn( V1 2 + K 2 sgn( 2 ) s (t ) = viscous + coulomb = V2 (12) 3 ) V3 3 K 3 sgn( >0 if 1 i ) = 0 =0 sgn( (13) if <0 1 if where Vi and K i are the air and surface friction effects.

76

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

Fig. 2. Three-joint robotic manipulator simulator model. Table 1 Main parameters of the manipulator model i mi li x i z i ki211 ki222 ki233 1 13.1339 0.1588 0.0493 0.0 5.6064 8.9196 13.2387 2 10.332 0.445 0.1618 0.0 3.929 47.8064 45.4838 3 6.4443 0.3962 0.0 0.2718 82.0644 81.9353 1.4 Unit kg m m m m2 103 m2 103 m2 103

initial angular position of joint i at time t0 and i f is the nal angular position of joint i at time t f . 3. Generalized predictive control for robotic manipulators Generalized Predictive Control (GPC) belongs to the class of digital control methods called Model Based Predictive Control (MBPC) and was rst introduced by Clarke and co-workers in 1987 [6,7]. MBPC techniques have been analyzed and implemented successfully in process control industries since the end of the 1970s and continue to be used because they can systematically take into account real plant constraints in real time. In the GPC algorithm, the process is supposed to be represented by a CARIMA (Controlled Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average) model [6,7]: A(q 1 ) y (t ) = B (q 1 )u (t 1) + (t )/ (16)

Here m i is the mass of limb i , li is the length of limb i , x i and z i are the relative coordinates of the center of limb i , and ki j j is the gyration radius ( I = ki2j j ).

Finally, by adding the effects of the joint frictions and loads to the LagrangeEuler equation sets, the simulation results are obtained for the most general situations. At the end of these calculations three interactive second-order nonlinear differential equations which include the effects of the joint frictions and loads are obtained. Details of these calculations are addressed in [13,14]. The differential equations obtained are turned into a robotic arm simulator by using Delphi 5.0 programming language. The RungeKutta integration method is used to solve the differential equations in the simulator software. In this study, the position reference and velocity reference trajectory for each limb are determined according to the cubic trajectory principle, to control the manipulator simulator. The equations for the cubic trajectory [14,15] are i (t ) = i 0 + i (t ) = 3 2 (i f i 0 )t 2 3 (i f i 0 )t 3 2 tf tf (14)

where y (t ) denotes the output of the process, u (t ) denotes its input, and (t ) denotes an uncorrelated random noise. A(q 1 ) and B (q 1 ) are polynomials of q 1 , the backward shift operator:
na

A(q 1 ) = Im +
j =1 nb

a j q j (17)

B (q 1 ) =
j =0

b j q j
1

=1q

The control increment minimizes the following cost function:

N2

J = (15)
j = N1

(y (t + j ) yr (t + j ))2

6 6 (i f i 0 )t 3 (i f i 0 )t 2 2 tf tf

Nu

where i (t ) is the angular position of joint i at time t , i 0 is the

+
j =1

( j )(u (t + j 1))2

(18)

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

77

Fig. 3. Block diagram of the GPC system for the robotic manipulator.

Fig. 5. Block diagram of the NGPC system and the algorithm for a three-joint robotic arm.

Fig. 4. Block diagram of the NGPC system and the algorithm.

where N1 is the minimum costing horizon, N2 is the maximum costing horizon, Nu is the control horizon, y is a predicted output, yr is the reference output. is the control input weighting factor and it is selected very small (as 106 ). Detailed computational issues of GPC are addressed in [6,7]. The GPC system for the robotic manipulator can be seen in Fig. 3. It consists of three components, the robotic manipulator or its simulator, the controller and the parameter estimator. The parameter estimation algorithm in GPC is Recursive Least Squares (RLS). Calculations in the GPC SISO algorithm are constructed in the same software as simulates the three-joint robotic manipulator system. A three-joint robotic manipulator system has three inputs and three outputs. The inputs are the torques applied to the joints and the outputs are the velocities of the joints. In the GPC part of the study, the three-joint robotic manipulator system is controlled according to the single-input singleoutput (SISO) GPC method. In the GPC SISO method, three independent GPC SISO algorithms are used. That is, for each individual joint, one independent GPC SISO algorithm is used as mentioned before. 4. Neural generalized predictive control for robotic manipulators The Neural Generalized Predictive Control (NGPC) system [810] for the robotic manipulator [5] can be seen in Fig. 4. It consists of four components, the robotic manipulator or its simulator, a tracking reference signal that species the desired trajectory of the manipulator, a neural network for prediction, and the Cost Function Minimization (CFM) algorithm that determines the input needed to produce the desired trajectory of the manipulator. The NGPC algorithm operates in two modes, prediction and control. For realizing this aim, a double-pole double-throw switch is used. The CFM algorithm produces an output which is used as an input either to the robotic manipulator or to the

Fig. 6. Multi-layer feed-forward neural network model with a time delayed structure.

manipulators neural network model. The switch position is set to the robotic manipulator when the CFM algorithm has solved for the best input, u (n ), that will minimize a specied cost function. Between samples, the switching position is set to the manipulators neural network model where the CFM algorithm uses this model to calculate the next control input, u (n + 1), from predictions of the response from the manipulators model. Once the cost function is minimized, this input is passed to the manipulator [810]. The minimization algorithm used in the NGPC SISO is NewtonRaphson. Detailed computational issues of NGPC are addressed in [10]. In the NGPC part of the study, the three-joint robotic manipulator system is controlled according to the NGPC SISO control method. In this method, three independent NGPC SISO algorithms are used. That is, for each individual joint, one independent NGPC SISO algorithm is used, as seen in Fig. 5. In Figs. 4 and 5, the torque, u , is the control input to the manipulator system and the trajectory, y , is the output; y m is the reference output and y n is the predicted output of the neural network. 4.1. Robotic manipulator neural network model for NGPC A multi-layer feed-forward network (MLFN) with tapped time delays was used for the robotic manipulator neural network model. The network structure shown in Fig. 6 depicts the SISO structure with the linear model embedded into the weights. The torque, u , is the control input to the manipulator system and the trajectory, y , is the output. The inputs to the

78

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

Fig. 7. Some control results for the three-joint manipulator controlled by the GPC SISO algorithm in the state of carrying load (angular velocity and torque applied).

network are the torque, past values of the torque, and the past values of the manipulators trajectory. The network has a single hidden layer with multiple hidden layer nodes and a single output node. The equations used in the neural network model are shown as (11)(13) [9,10]. As can be seen from the equations,

the activation function for the hidden layer nodes is a tangentsigmoid transfer function and this is used as the activation function for the hidden layer, and the activation function for the output node is a linear transfer function. The back-propagation algorithm was used for training of the neural network model [16]:

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

nd dd

79

net j (n ) = b j +
i =0

w j ,i u (n i ) +
i =1

w j ,i +n d y (n i )

(19)

Table 2 Angle location errors Control state A Control GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO GPC SISO NGPC SISO Joint 1 0.000039 0.000003 0.000265 0.000003 0.000419 0.000024 0.000483 0.000045 0.000049 0.000024 0.000131 0.000015 0.000027 0.000042 0.000071 0.000118 Joint 2 0.022664 0.000213 0.021869 0.000213 0.029934 0.000439 0.032949 0.000552 0.035055 0.000440 0.034708 0.000589 0.040992 0.000537 0.046513 0.000339 Joint 3 0.007831 0.000064 0.002915 0.000063 0.006018 0.000041 0.005548 0.000004 0.003771 0.000043 0.004030 0.000012 0.002672 0.000039 0.005328 0.000052 rad Unit

enet j (n ) O j (n ) = f (net j (n )) = net (n ) e j + enet j (n ) 2 = 1 1 + e2net j (n )

hid1

enet j (n )

(20)
B

yn (n ) = b +
j =0

w j O j (n )

(21)

C D E F.a F.b F.c

where j = 0 to hid 1 and hid is the number of hidden layer nodes, net j (n ) is the activation level of the j th hidden node, f () is the activation function for the hidden layer nodes, n d is the number of input nodes associated with u () not counting u (n ), dd is the number of input nodes associated with y (), w j is the weight connecting the j th hidden node to the output node, w j ,i is the weight connecting the i th input node to the j th hidden node, y (n i ) is the delayed output of the manipulators joint used as an input to the network, and u (n i ) is the input to the network and its delays. In this study, n d , dd , and hid were used as 2, 3, and 5 respectively. 5. Control states and simulation parameters Calculations of the NGPC SISO and GPC SISO algorithms are constructed in the same software as simulates the three-joint robotic manipulator system. In addition to these calculations, this software also includes the robotic manipulator neural network model. In this paper, for comparison of the GPC SISO and NGPC SISO, the following control states and values were used. The control states used in this study: A. There were no friction, load and disturbance effects in the control simulation. B. There were no load and disturbance effects, but there is a friction effect in the control simulation. C. There was no disturbance effect, but there are carrying load and friction effects in the control simulation. D. There was no disturbance effect, but there are falling load and friction effects in the control simulation. E. There were disturbance (up to the maximum 0.5 N m), carrying load and friction effects in the control simulation. F. There were disturbance, falling load and friction effects in the control simulation. a. Random disturbance up to the maximum 0.5 N m. b. Random disturbance up to the maximum 1.0 N m. c. Random disturbance up to the maximum 2.0 N m. The control values used in the simulation: - Torques applied to joints are bounded by umin = 225 N m and umax = +225 N m. - Vi , the air friction effects, were 1.0 N m/rad s1 and K i , the surface friction effects, were 0.5 N m for control states with friction [17]. - The total simulation time is 1 s and the total step number is 500.

- Random disturbances up to the maximum 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 N m were added to the torques calculated at the end of each step for control states with disturbance. - The robotic manipulator caries 10 kg load in the state of carrying and falling load. And the load is falling in step 300 (at time 0.6 s) in the state of falling load. - The RungeKutta integration number for each step is 4. - Each joint angle is changing from 0 rad to 0.78539816 rad during the simulation. 6. Results and discussion Some sample control results for the three-joint robotic manipulator which use GPC SISO algorithms for the states B and C were given in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. And some sample control results for the three-joint robotic manipulator which use NGPC SISO algorithms for the states B and C were also given in Figs. 9 and 10 respectively. Comparisons of the GPC SISO and NGPC SISO algorithm control results are summarized and demonstrated in Tables 2 and 3 by using angle location errors and x , y , z axis errors of the robot arm end point for all of the control states. As seen in Figs. 710, torque and angular velocity graphics are much smoother for NGPC SISO that those for GPC SISO for the cubic trajectory. So, the motion of the manipulator is more smooth and exible in the NGPC SISO. In the same gures, it is shown that the inuence of load change on the NGPC SISO is less than that on the GPC SISO. This shows that the NGPC SISO is much stable than GPC SISO to load changes. As seen in Figs. 7 and 8, at the beginning of the motion, the angular velocity and torque errors were bigger in the GPC SISO than those in the NGPC SISO. This could be because the neural network improves the predicted trajectory at the beginning of the motion. There were similar situations at

80

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

Fig. 8. Some control results for the three-joint manipulator controlled by the GPC SISO algorithm in the state of falling load (angular velocity and torque applied).

the load changes. Although in the beginning and in the load changes, the GPC SISO could not adapt quickly, the neural network provided quick adaptation to the NGPC SISO. As seen in Tables 2 and 3, the angle location errors and x , y , z axis errors of the end point are smaller in the NGPC SISO than those in the GPC SISO. The difference

between the control results for the no-load, the carrying load and the falling load states and the states with disturbances can be easily shown. These values for the NGPC SISO are less than those for the GPC SISO. In these tables, it is also shown that the inuence of load change on the NGPC SISO is less than that on the GPC SISO. This result is similar to the result which

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

81

Fig. 9. Some control results for the three-joint manipulator controlled by the NGPC SISO algorithm in the state of carrying load (angular velocity and torque applied).

is shown by the gures. The same tables show also that while the inuence of the disturbances to the GPC SISO can be easily shown, the inuence of the disturbances to the NGPC SISO is negligibly small. Fig. 11 shows the effects of the disturbances to the GPC SISO clearly. The fact that the NGPC SISO reduced

the inuence of the load changes and disturbances was shown in this gure and the above tables. This could be because the neural network reduced the noise effect. As a result, on the basis of the simulation results shown in the gures and tables, it is seen that the NGPC SISO algorithm

82

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483

Fig. 10. Some control results for the three-joint manipulator controlled by the NGPC SISO algorithm in the state of falling load (angular velocity and torque applied).

performs better than the GPC SISO algorithm for robotic manipulator control with a cubic trajectory. This could be because the robotic manipulator is a nonlinear system and NGPC SISO is nonlinear system model, while GPC SISO is a linear system

model. And these results show also that the NGPC SISO reduced the inuence of the load changes and disturbances. This means that the NGPC SISO algorithm combines the advantages of predictive control and the neural network.

F. Temurtas et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (2006) 7483 Table 3 x , y , z axis errors of the end point Control state A B C D E F.a F.b F.c Control x coordinate y coordinate 4.93015 0.04586 4.85132 0.04559 6.21928 0.08338 6.80366 0.09541 7.55509 0.08364 7.37349 0.12205 8.68093 0.09376 9.82287 0.00283 z coordinate 13.08825 0.12602 9.80317 0.12603 19.03328 0.32797 21.39159 0.39389 23.61460 0.32977 23.26104 0.42306 30.45359 0.39671 31.28373 0.26108 mm Unit

83

GPC SISO 4.97847 NGPC SISO 0.04899 4.86345 GPC SISO NGPC SISO 0.04903 GPC SISO 6.73969 NGPC SISO 0.11304 GPC SISO 7.40406 NGPC SISO 0.15047 GPC SISO 7.49383 NGPC SISO 0.11350 7.53670 GPC SISO NGPC SISO 0.14009 8.64751 GPC SISO NGPC SISO 0.14516 GPC SISO 9.91155 NGPC SISO 0.14789

[6] D.W. Clarke, C. Mohtadi, P.C. Tuffs, Generalized predictive control part 1: the basic algorithm, Automatica 23 (1987) 137148. [7] D.W. Clarke, C. Mohtadi, P.C. Tuffs, Generalized predictive control part 2: extensions and interpretations, Automatica 23 (1987) 149163. [8] D. Soloway, Neural generalized predictive control for real-time control, Masters Thesis, Old Dominion University, 1996. [9] D. Soloway, P.J. Haley, Neural generalized predictive control: a NewtonRaphson implementation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE CCA/ISIC/CACSD, IEEE Paper No. ISIAC-TA5.2, 1996. [10] D. Soloway, P.J. Haley, Neural generalized predictive control: a NewtonRaphson implementation, NASA Technical Memorandum 110244, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 1997. [11] P.H. Srensen, M. Nrgaard, O. Ravn, N.K. Poulsen, Implementation of neural network based non-linear predictive control, Neurocomputing 28 (1999) 3751. [12] W.M. Silver, On the equivalence of Lagrangian and NewtonEuler dynamics for manipulators, The International Journal of Robotics Research 1 (2) (1982) 6070. [13] C.S.G. Lee, Robot arm kinematics dynamics, and control, Computer 15 (12) (1982) 6280. [14] H. Temurtas, Ph.D. Thesis, Sakarya University Science Institute, Adapazari, Turkey, 2003. [15] R. Koker, C. Oz, T. Cakar, H. Ekiz, A study of neural network based inverse kinematics solution, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 49 (34) (2004) 227234. [16] S. Haykin, Neural Networks, A Comprehensive Foundation, Macmillan Publishing Company, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994. [17] H. Seraji, A new approach to adaptive control of manipulators, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 109 (1987) 193202.

Fevzullah Temurtas received his B.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Middle East Technical University, M.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Dumlupnar University and Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Sakarya University. He has substantial experience of data processing techniques, especially with neural networks and fuzzy logic.

Fig. 11. Euclidean distance error of the end point versus control state graphs for the GPC SISO and NGPC SISO algorithms.

References
[1] A. Eskandarian, N.E. Bedewi, B.M. Kramer, A.J. Barbera, Dynamics modelling of robotic manipulators using an articial neural network, Journal of Robotic Systems 11 (1) (1994) 4156. [2] N.M. De, R. Gorez, Fuzzy and quantitative model-based control system for robotic manipulators, International Journal of System Science 24 (1993). [3] S. Hosogi, N. Watanabe, M. Sekiguchi, A neural network model of the cerebellum performing dynamic control of a robotic manipulator by learning, Fujitsi Science and Technical Journal 29 (1993). [4] H. Hu, D. Gu, Generalized predictive control of an industrial mobile robot, in: IASTED International Conference, Intelligent Systems And Control, October 2830, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 1999, pp. 234240. [5] F. Temurtas, H. Temurtas, N. Yumusak, C. Oz, Effects of the trajectory planning on the model based predictive robotic manipulator control, in: Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 2869, 2003, pp. 545552.

Hasan Temurtas received his B.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Middle East Technical University, M.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Dumlupnar University and Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Sakarya University. He has substantial experience with robotic manipulators and predictive control.

Nejat Yumusak received his B.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Istanbul Technical University, M.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Dumlupnar University and Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Sakarya University. He has substantial experience with robotic manipulators, neural networks and predictive control.