machines

Article
Synchronous PD Control Using a Time Delay Estimator for a
Four-Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Robot in Practice
Duc Thien Tran * , Thanh Nha Nguyen, Xuan Tra Nguyen and Duc Manh Nguyen

Automatic Control Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education,
Ho Chi Minh 700000, Vietnam; ntnha0639@gmail.com (T.N.N.); tranguyen442001@gmail.com (X.T.N.);
ducmanh9128@gmail.com (D.M.N.)
* Correspondence: thientd@hcmute.edu.vn; Tel.: +84-988-862-588

Abstract: This paper presents a synchronous proportional derivative (PD) control method using a
time delay estimator (SPD-TDE) for a four-degree-of-freedom (DOF) parallel robot in practice. The
proposed control is a method that is developed from a synchronous PD control method combined
with a time delay estimator to guarantee the tracking objectives and synchronous requirements of
the robot. Firstly, the synchronous PD control method is designed by defining cross-coupling errors.
A cross-coupling error is determined by incorporating the tracking error and deviation of tracking
error among two adjacent joints or synchronous errors. Then, the asynchronous problem between the
kinematic chains is solved and guarantees that the goal of synchronicity is achieved. Consequently,
to improve the tracking performance of the robot, a time delay estimator is used to estimate and
eliminate the uncertainty components of the system, such as modeling errors and actuator faults.
In addition, the Lyapunov theory is also used to demonstrate the stability and robustness of the
proposed control method. Finally, a testbench 4-DOF parallel robot is built, and the controllers
are embedded in the control board from MATLAB Simulink using the Waijung block set library to
operate the robot preset trajectory tracking. The experimental results of the proposed control method
for the 4-DOF parallel robot are compared with those obtained using other controllers to prove its
effectiveness.

Citation: Tran, D.T.; Nguyen, T.N.; Keywords: 4-DOF parallel robot; PD control; cross-coupling error; synchronous control; time delay estimator
Nguyen, X.T.; Nguyen, D.M.
Synchronous PD Control Using a
Time Delay Estimator for a
Four-Degree-of-Freedom Parallel
1. Introduction
Robot in Practice. Machines 2023, 11,
831. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Nowadays, robots are applied in many fields to replace humans in performing different
machines11080831
tasks and to improve production productivity as well as product quality. There are many
types of robots that have been researched, developed, and commercialized, and one of
Academic Editor: Dan Zhang
them is the parallel robot. The parallel robot has a closed-loop structure; the fixed base is
Received: 6 July 2023 linked to a moving platform with parallel and identical kinematic chains. It has been widely
Revised: 6 August 2023 applied in many fields, such as industry [1–3], agriculture [4], medicine [5], and motion
Accepted: 11 August 2023 simulation [6], due to its distinct advantages of high stiffness, high speed, high accuracy,
Published: 15 August 2023 high flexibility, and large load-carrying capacity [7]. However, the closed-loop structure
of the robot also brings many difficulties in controlling it, such as a limited workspace,
singularity, the forward kinematic problem, and a complicated dynamic model. Many
control methods have been proposed to deal with the above problems. And these methods
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. have been divided into two distinct approaches [8]: control methods not based on a model,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. such as proportional–integral–derivative (PID) control [9,10], fuzzy control [11], and neural
This article is an open access article
network control (NNC) [12]; and model-based control methods such as sliding-mode
distributed under the terms and
control (SMC) [13,14], fault-tolerant control (FTC) [15], and adaptive control [16].
conditions of the Creative Commons
Generally, the two control approaches mentioned above solve some problems in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
parallel manipulator trajectory tracking control. However, an important problem that exists
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
in conventional controllers for parallel robots is that the controllers can only individually
4.0/).

Machines 2023, 11, 831. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines11080831 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2023, 11, 831 2 of 21

control each joint of the robot without feedback from other joints. Meanwhile, the parallel
manipulator has a closed-loop mechanical structure, and the moving platform follows
the trajectory depending on the coordination of the same kinematic sequences. At any
time, a disturbance or transmission error can occur in one of the loops while the others do
not respond. The lack of synchronicity between the control loops can lead to uncovered
deformation; even deconstruction can happen [17]. To solve this problem, a cross-coupling
synchronous control method has been proposed for closed-loop systems.
The cross-coupling control for the serial manipulator was first introduced by Ko-
ren [18]. This control method involves defining the tracking error, synchronous error, and
cross-coupling error. The deviation between the joint angle response and the reference
joint is the tracking error. The difference between the tracking errors of two transmission
joints adjacent is the synchronous error. And the combination of tracking and synchronous
errors is a cross-coupling error. The cross-coupling error is used to design the synchronous
controller and to achieve the goal of synchronicity or the simultaneous convergence of
tracking and synchronous errors to zero. As a result, this method significantly improves the
tracking performance and ensures the goal of synchronizing the system. Recently, several
studies on synchronous algorithms have been published and applied to many subjects. For
example, Dong Sun et al. used cross-coupling control technology on CNC machines [19]
and multiple-motion-axis systems [20–22]. In robotics, Dong Sun et al. designed a syn-
chronous tracking control method for a 3-DOF parallel robot [23]; Weiwei Shang et al.
implemented a synchronous method for a planar parallel robot with a redundant actuator
in the task space [24]; Piotrr Wos and Ryszard studied a 3-DOF hydraulic translational par-
allel manipulator [25]; Keke Shi et al. used coupled orbit–attitude dynamics and trajectory
tracking control for spacecraft electromagnetic docking [26]; and D. T. Tran et al. experi-
mented with a synchronous algorithm on a 4-DOF parallel manipulator in practice [27].
Considering the above analyses, this study proposes a synchronous proportional derivative
(SPD) control method for a 4-DOF parallel robot to solve the asynchronous problem among
the joints as well as to guarantee the goal of synchronizing the system. Nevertheless, a
4-DOF parallel robot has high nonlinearity and is always affected by external disturbance
and uncertainty components such as modeling error, actuator faults, etc. Meanwhile, the
SPD control method has a simple structure without a clearly dynamic model system. So,
achieving a high orbital tracking performance and resistance to external disturbance and
uncertainty components is a challenge.
Recently, researchers have applied intelligent methods to handle the above prob-
lems. Intelligent methods are used to estimate and eliminate external disturbances and
uncertainty terms via their integration with linear/nonlinear controllers. For example,
in [28], Jinglei et al. designed an adaptive fuzzy backstepping control method based
on dynamic surface control for an uncertain robotic manipulator. Fuzzy networks were
used to approximate the uncertain modeling error and external disturbance in the system.
The control performance of the robotic manipulator was improved significantly. In [29],
Chuang Liu et al. proposed an active disturbance rejection control (ADRC) method for the
electromagnetic docking of spacecraft in the presence of time-varying delay, fault signals,
external disturbances, and elliptical eccentricity. An ADRC scheme was developed to guar-
antee the relative position, relative velocity, and the estimation errors of relative motion
information and the total disturbance of the system. As a result, the proposed control
method for the spacecraft achieved high accuracy and strong robustness. However, these
intelligent methods require complex computation. So, it is not practical to implement them
in real applications. Compared to fuzzy logic or neural networks or ADRC, a well-known
technique is the time delay estimator (TDE), which is also used to estimate and cancel
nonlinear dynamics. Furthermore, TDE has a simple structure that does not use a dynamic
model of the system. Therefore, it is combined with many other control methods to increase
the accuracy and improve the performance of the system, such as the combination of a TDE
and supervising switching control to synchronous control for a chaos system [30]. A PUMA
robot manipulator achieved good tracking performance and chattering reduction using
Machines 2023, 11, 831 3 of 21

the TDE and fuzzy logics systems [31] and linked to the adaptive PID-fractional-order
nonsingular terminal sliding mode control and TDE to obtain higher accurate results for
cable-driven manipulators [32]. Other research incorporates the synchronous sliding mode
control and TDE to ensure the asymptotic convergence of the errors and eliminate the
uncertainty influence of a 2-DOF parallel manipulator [33,34]. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, some studies use the TDE method to control the parallel manipulators. For a
4-DOF parallel robot, due to the complexities of both computation kinematic and dynamic
models, there are very few experimental results of this method.
Based on the above analysis, this paper proposed an SPD-TDE control method for a
4-DOF parallel robot in the presence of uncertainties such as modeling errors and actuator
faults. The proposed control is designed by combining the PD control, cross-coupling
synchronous control, and time-delay estimator. As a result, the asynchronous problem
among the chain kinematics is solved, and the nonlinear components in the system are
estimated and eliminated in the control process. From that, the quality of trajectory tracking
improves significantly, as well as the synchronous objective of the closed-loop system is
achieved.
The main contribution of this paper is summarized as follows:
1. The kinematics and dynamics of a 4-DOF parallel robot are presented based on the
geometric and Euler–Lagrange methods with the daresay. Next, a synchronous PD
control method is designed to solve the asynchronous among the kinematic chains in
the closed-loop system. A combination of the SPD control and time delay estimator is
formed to estimate the total lumped uncertainty components in the system. So, the
quality of trajectory tracking of the robot improved significantly.
2. The stability and robustness of the proposed control are proven using the Lyapunov
theory. Furthermore, a testbench 4-DOF parallel is built, and the controllers are
programmed in MATLAB Simulink and are embedded in board control to operate
robot preset trajectory tracking. From that, the experiment results are collected and
evaluated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control compared to other
controllers.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the problem formulations.
Section 3 presents the design of the proposed control, and the stability analysis of the
proposed controller is discussed. In Section 4, the effectiveness of the proposed controller
will be demonstrated using the experiment, and the experiment results will be compared
to the PD control and the SPD control. Finally, some conclusions and future works are
presented.

2. Problem Formulations
In this section, the solution of the inverse kinematics, forward kinematics, dynamics
model, and synchronous method for a 4-DOF parallel manipulator is presented. This model
is designed using Solidworks 2021. The model is composed of a base platform or fixed
base, a moving platform connected by four upper arms and four lower arms, forming a
closed-loop structure characterized by parallel robots, as shown in Figure 1. The physical
parameters used in the calculation are extracted from the 3D model of the robot, as shown
in Figure 2 and Table 1.

Table 1. The physic parameters of the 4-DOF parallel robot experiment.

Parameters Value Description

L1 181 mm Length of an active limb
L2 498 mm Length of a passive limb
r 136.5 mm Radius of fixed base
d 80 mm Length of the moving platform
h 80 mm Length of the moving platform’s parallelogram bars
hi , di (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) 20.7 mm Distances between Ci and Di , respectively, along PY axis and along PX axis
Machines 2023,
Machines 2023, 11,
11, 831
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of 23
of 21

UPPER ARM
BASE
PLATFORM

LOWER ARM
MOVING
PLATFORM

Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

Figure 1. The 3D model of a 4-DOF parallel robot.

Table 1. The physic parameters of the 4-DOF

OZ parallel robot experiment.
OY
Upper arm
Parameters Value Description
r
O i q
L1 O
181 mm Length ofan active limbY
L1 i
2
1
u1 OX Ai 2 Ai
L2 498 mm Length ofu aBpassive
B limb
2
2
1
Ai1
r O
136.5 mm Radius of fixed 3
base
u

O 4 X

80 mm Length ofBthe
r L2
u moving platform 4
d B 3
3 4
h 80 mm Length of the moving platform’s parallelogram bars
hi , di ( i = 1, 2,3, 4 ) 20.7 mm Distances between Ci and Di , respectively, along PY axis and along
Lower PX axis
arm
P Di
2.1. Kinematics
(a) (b)
2.1.1. Inverse Kinematic
Di 2
In this section, the inversed kinematic solution of a 4-DOF parallel robot determined
D D1
based on the position end-effector is presented.
2 The origin coordinate system of the robot
h1
is set on the base platform, Pwith
' O is1the base platform center, and i (i = 1,2,3,4) is the
d D i 1
C
deviation angle at each upper arm1 relative to the X axis, as shown in Figure 2a,
(i = ( 2i − 1) / 4) . The PY
h geometric structure of a kinematic chain is shown in Figure 2b,
where r is the distance from the origin O to the upper arm revolute joint center
P
( OBi = r ) . L1 and L2 are the lengths
PX of the upper arm and lower arm, respectively,
D D
(BAi i = L1, Ai Di = L2 , i = 1,2,3,4
3
) . qi (i = 1,2,3,4) is the
4 rotation angle of each upper arm. Figure

2c presents the geometric structure (c) of the moving platform described using x, y, z, . In-
side
Figure x , y , z is the position value of the end-effector in the PXYZTopcoordinate system rela-
Figure2.2. The
Thegeometry
geometrystructurestructureof
ofaa4-DOF
4-DOFparallel
parallelmanipulator:
manipulator:(a)(a) Topview
viewof
ofaabase
baseplatform;
platform;
tiveSide
(b) to view
(b) Side
the OXYZ
view ofof aa chain
origin coordinate
chain kinematic
kinematic ith;
system,
ith; and
and (c)
(c) Top
and
Top view
 is
view of
the rotation
of aa moving
moving platform.
angle of the moving
platform.
platform. In Figure 2c, the coordinate local PXYZ is present, where P is the controller
2.1.
point,Kinematics
Theand kinematic (i = 1,2,3,4) are
d , di , h, hirelationship is based on the following
the geometry parametersequation:
of the moving platform. d
2.1.1. Inverse Kinematic
is the length of the moving platform (along the x-axis). h is the length of the parallelo-
gramInbars.
this section,
hi andthed iinverse kinematic
are the distances i i = of
AD
solution
between L2 a C
4-DOF
i
andparallel robot determined
Di , respectively, based
along the (1)
x-
axis and y-axis. Di is the midpoint of  i1, Di 2  , where the two ball hinges connecting the
on the position end-effector is presented.D The origin coordinate system of the robot is set
on the baseon
Based platform,
the with O isOXYZ
coordinate the base platform
system, center, and αof
the coordinates = 1,
i (ithe 2, 3, 4) is,the deviation
points Ai Di and Bi
ith lower
angle armupper
at each with the
armmoving
relativeplatform.
to the X axis, as shown in Figure 2a, (αi = (2i − 1)π/4).
is determined.
The geometric structure of a kinematic chain is shown in Figure 2b, where r is the distance
Equation (1) can be rewritten as follows:
from the origin O to the upper arm revolute joint center (|OBi | = r). L1 and L2 are the
lengths of the upper arm and lower E arm, i + Fi cos qi + G
respectively,
i sin q (|i B=i A
0 i | = L1 , | Ai Di | = L2 , i = 1, 2, 3,(2) 4).
qi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) is the rotation angle of each upper arm. Figure 2c presents the geometric
where
structureEi , Fi , and Gi are the functions of the robot geometry.
of the moving platform described using x, y, z, θ. Inside x, y, z is the position value
The inverse
of the end-effector kinematic can be
in the PXYZ obtained system
coordinate by solving Equation
relative to the(2) as follows:
OXYZ origin coordinate
system, and θ is the rotation angle of the moving platform.
 −E − E 2 + F 2 − G2 
In Figure 2c, the coordinate local
PXYZ is present, where P is the 2 tan −1  point,
qi =controller i i
andi d, di ,i h, (hi i=(i1,2,3,4 )
= 1, 2, 3, 4) are the geometry(3)
parameters of the moving platform. d is the length Gi − Fof
i the moving

 platform (along the x-axis).
Remark 1. The formula of Ei , Fi , and Gi functions is presented in detail in Appendix A.

2.1.2. Forward Kinematic

The forward kinematic of a 4-DOF parallel robot aims at calculating the end-effector
Machines 2023, 11, 831 5 of 21

h is the length of the parallelogram bars. hi and di are the distances between Ci and Di ,
respectively, along the x-axis and y-axis. Di is the midpoint of [Di1 , Di2 ], where the two ball
hinges connecting the ith lower arm with the moving platform.
The kinematic relationship is based on the following equation:

| A i Di | = L 2 (1)

Based on the coordinate OXYZ system, the coordinates of the points Ai , Di and Bi is
determined.
Equation (1) can be rewritten as follows:

Ei sin qi + Fi cos qi + Gi = 0 (2)

where Ei , Fi , and Gi are the functions of the robot geometry.

The inverse kinematic can be obtained by solving Equation (2) as follows:
 q 
− Ei − Ei2 + Fi2 − Gi2
qi = 2 tan−1  (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) (3)
Gi − Fi

Remark 1. The formula of Ei , Fi , and Gi functions is presented in detail in Appendix A.

2.1.2. Forward Kinematic

The forward kinematic of a 4-DOF parallel robot aims at calculating the end-effector
position by knowing the joint angles q. However, this leads to an eighth-order polynomial
in θ. Therefore, the Jacobian scheme can solve the problem more efficiently than the
algebraic method.
The Jacobian matrix is the relationship between the end-effector velocities and rotation
angle velocities. It can be written as follows:
. .
P = Jq (4)
. h. . . . iT
where J is the Jacobian matrix of the system, P = X Y Z θ is the velocity of the end
. . . . . T
position of the end-effector, and q = q1 q2 q3 q4 is the velocity of the rotation angle.
The square on both sides of Equation (1), we can obtain the following:

| Ai D i | 2 = L 2 2 (5)

The derivative of Equation (5) for time is given using the following:
. .
AP + Bq=0 (6)

From Equations (4) and (6), we can obtain the following:

J = − A−1 B (7)

The forward kinematic of the parallel robot is obtained via the integration of the below
equation as follows [35,36]:

χn+1 = χn + ρJ(χn , qn )(qd − qn ) (8)

where χn is the coordinate of the end-effector position, χn+1 is the coordinate of the next
end-effector position, qn is the current joint angle of the robot, qd is the desired joint angle,
and ρ is the arithmetic coefficient.
Machines 2023, 11, 831 6 of 21

2.2. Dynamic Model

The dynamic equation of a 4-DOF parallel robot is as follows:
.. .
. .

M(q)q + C q,q q + G(q) + τf q, q + JT Fext = ατ (9)
.

where M(q) ∈ R4×4 is the inertial matrix, C q, q ∈ R4×4 is the Coriolis/Centrifugal
matrix, G(q) ∈ R4×1 is the gravitational vector, τf ∈ R4×1 is the friction vector, J is the
. ..
Jacobian matrix, Fext ∈ R4×1 is the external disturbance vector, q, q, q ∈ R4×1 are the
vectors of the position, velocity, and acceleration of the joint angles, τ ∈ R4×1 is the joint
torques vector, and α ∈ R4×4 is the diagonal positive define matrix.
By giving a constant diagonal matrix, M ∈ R4×4 , the expression (9) can be rewritten in
another form as follows:
.. . ..

Mq + N q, q, q = τ (10)
. ..
 .. .
.
where N q, q, q = M(q) − M q + C q, q q + G(q) + τf + JT Fext + (I − α)τ is the total


lumped uncertainty components.

Assumption 1. The connection between the fixed base and the moving platform of the robot is
through the links and spherical joints. The mechanical parts are machined with high precision. So,
the friction among the joints of the robot is negligible.

2.3. Synchronous Errors and Cross-Coupling Errors

To consider the synchronous of a close-loop chain manipulator, the synchronous con-
trol objective is to simultaneously converge both the tracking error e(t) and synchronous
error es (t) to zero, whereby the deviation among two adjacent joints is called the syn-
chronous error. Moreover, to achieve this goal, the cross-coupled error is defined as the
combination of both tracking and synchronous error, and the cross-coupled error is used to
design a synchronous controller.
The synchronous error has the following form:

e s1 ( t ) = e1 ( t ) − e2 ( t )
e s2 ( t ) = e2 ( t ) − e3 ( t )
(11)
e s3 ( t ) = e3 ( t ) − e4 ( t )
e s4 ( t ) = e4 ( t ) − e1 ( t )

where esi (t) is the synchronous error of the ith axis, and ei (t) is the tracking error of the ith
joint.
Equation (11) can be rewritten in the matrix format as follows:

−1 0
    
e s1 ( t ) 1 0 e1 ( t )
 es ( t )   0
 2 = 1 −1 0  e2 (t) = Te(t)
 
(12)
 es ( t )   0
3 0 1 − 1   e3 ( t ) 
e s4 ( t ) −1 0 0 1 e4 ( t )

The cross-coupled error is expressed below as follows:

E(t) = e(t) + βes (t) (13)

where E(t) ∈ R4×1 is a cross-coupled error, and β ∈ R4×4 is a diagonal matrix positive
definite. Substituting (12) into (13), we can obtain Equation (13) in simple form as follows:

E(t) = (I + βT)e(t) (14)

where I is an identity matrix.

Machines 2023, 11, 831 7 of 21

Remark 2. Based on Equation (14), if the inverse (I + βT) exists, and β is chosen suitable,
(I + βT), it will be positive definite and have a full rank. When E(t) → 0 leading to e(t) → 0
and es (t) → 0 , the synchronous control object will be obtained.

The first derivative of the function E(t) is calculated as follows:

. .
E(t) = (I + βT(t))e(t) (15)

The second derivative of the function E(t) is calculated as follows:

.. ..
E(t) = (I + βT)e(t) (16)

3. Control Design
3.1. Synchronous PD Control
The structure of the synchronous PD control for a 4-DOF parallel manipulator under
the existence of the uncertainty components is shown in Figure 3. The cross-coupling
error receives an informal tracking error of each joint and calculates the synchronous
Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23 into the
error between two adjacent joints. After that, these two errors are incorporated
Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23
cross-coupling error, which is an input to the controller to calculate the control value.

Synchronous PD control
Synchronous PD control 4-DOF parallel robot
- Unknown dynamics model4-DOF parallel robot
Trajectory Cross-coupling - Unknown dynamics model
+ PD control - Unknown payload
planning qd - Trajectory
error +
Cross-coupling
PD controlerror
- Modelling - Unknown payload
planning qd - error
- Actuator faults - Modelling error
- Actuator faults
q
q
Figure 3.
3.The
Thestructure
structureof of
thethe
synchronous PD control.
Figure Figure 3. Thesynchronous PDsynchronous
structure of the control. PD control.

The
Thecontrol
controllaw
lawis is
presented as follows:
presented asisfollows:
The control law presented as follows:
τ=K P2 E+K D 2 E . (17)
τ = K E+K E τ=K P2 E+K D 2 E
P2 D2 (17) (17)
44
where K P2 , K D 2  R denote the coefficient
44 matrix of the proportional, derivative terms,
R 4×4 K
where P , KD  R coefficient
denote thematrix
coefficient matrix of the proportional, derivative
terms, terms,
where
respectively, D2 ∈
KP2 , Kand denote the
positive definite. E  R41 is
2 2 of the
the cross-coupling
proportional,
error vector.
derivative
respectively, and respectively, and positive
positive definite. E ∈ Rdefinite.  R41 is the cross-coupling
4×1 is theEcross-coupling error vector.
error vector.
3.2. Proposed Control
3.2. Proposed Control
3.2. Proposed Control
The diagram of the proposed control for a 4-DOF parallel robot in practice is pre-
The Theproposed
diagram of the proposed control for a 4-DOF parallel robot in practice is pre-
sented in diagram of the
Figure 4. The control
proposed control for a 4-DOF
is developed from parallel robot in
the synchronous practice is presented
PD control
sented in Figure 4. The proposed control is developed from the synchronous PD control
in Figure
based on a4.time-delay
The proposed control
estimator is developed
(TDE). The TDE uses from
thethe
pastsynchronous
observation of PDthecontrol
response based on a
based on a time-delay estimator (TDE). The TDE uses the past observation of the response
time-delay
of the system estimator
and the(TDE).
controlThe TDErather
actions uses the past
than observation
adjusting of the response
the controller ofidenti-
gains or the system and
of the system and the control actions rather than adjusting the controller gains or identi-
fying
the system
control parameters,
actions rather thereby leading tothe
thanparameters,
adjusting a model-independent
controller gains controller.
identifyingIndeed, TDE
fying system thereby leading to a or
model-independent system parameters,
controller. Indeed, TDE
can estimate and
thereby leading tocan eliminate the uncertainty
a model-independent terms
controller.such as modeling
Indeed, TDE errors and actuator
estimate and eliminate the uncertainty termscan estimate
such and eliminate
as modeling theactuator
errors and
faults in theterms
uncertainty system.
suchTherefore, the quality trajectory tracking is the
improved significantly,
faultsasinmodeling errors
the system. and actuator
Therefore, faultstrajectory
the quality in system. Therefore,
tracking the quality
is improved significantly,
and the synchronous
trajectory tracking and of the system
is improved is also achieved.
significantly,
the synchronous of theand the synchronous
system is also achieved. of the system is also achieved.

Synchronous PD control based on Time-delay estimator

Synchronous PD control based on Time-delay estimator
d2 d2
dt 2 dt 2 4-DOF parallel robot
4-DOF parallel robot
Trajectory Cross-coupling u τ u - Unknown dynamics
τ
model
- Unknown dynamics model
+- Trajectory Cross-coupling
PD control ++
M PD control - Unknown payload
planning error +- M ++ - Unknown payload
qd planning q error - Modelling error
d - Modelling error
- Actuator faults
N̂ N̂ - Actuator faults
TDE 2
d TDE - 2 Delay t -L
dt 2 M +d M -+ Delay t -L q
dt 2 q

Figure 4.
Figure 4.The
Thestructure
structureof of
Figurethe proposed
4.the control.
Theproposed
structure control.
of the proposed control.

The control objective

Theiscontrol
the output response
objective of the
is the qoutput system following
response q of the the reference
system following the reference
trajectory qd , which means the tracking error e = q
trajectory qd , which means the tracking
d − q converges to zero. The following
error e = qd − q converges to zero. The following
defines the desireddefines
error dynamics:
the desired error dynamics:
 Machines 2023, 11, 831 8 of 21

OR PEER REVIEW The control objective is the output response q of the system following the reference 9
trajectory qd , which means the tracking error e = qd − q converges to zero. The following
defines the desired error dynamics:
.. .
2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW e + KD* e + KP* e = 0 (18)9 of 23
) denotes the estimate of N( q,q ,q
ˆ ( q, q , q
where N ) , which is obtained via the TDE sub
Based on Figure 4, we can see that the control input has the following form:
tem. If the matrix M is chosen suitable, and the time . ..
delay L is small enough, we
of N( q,q,q
) , which
τ = Mu + N̂ q, q, q (19)
N
obtain where ()q,equal
ˆ
ˆ ( q, q ,N
q ) denotes
q , q the estimate
to a slightly time-delayed N( qvia
is obtained
past value, , q , q )t −LTDE
the subsys-as
, namely
with M is chosen suitable, ..and the . time delay L is small enough, we can
lows: tem. If the matrix u = qd + KD* E + KP* E (20)
obtain N( q, q , q
ˆ ) equal
. ..
to a slightly time-delayed . ..past

value, N( q, q , q
)t − L , namely as fol-
where N̂ q, q, q denotes the estimate of N q, q, q , which is obtained via the TDE subsys-
lows: ˆ q, q , q
N
tem. If the
matrix M is chosen suitable,
. ..
(
and=the
N time )
q, q ,delay
q ( )
 t − LL is small enough, we can obtain
. ..

N̂ q, q, q equal to a slightly time-delayed past value, N q, q, q t− L , namely as follows:
ˆ ( q, q , q
N ) = N( q, q , q
) (21)
. ..
N( q, q . ) ..t
−at
 ,q the time ( t − L ) , and(21)
L
Based on Equation (10), which can find
N̂ q, q, q = N q, q, q
substitu
t− L
Based (21),
it into Equation on Equation (10), which
we obtain can find N( q,q,q
the following: . ) ..
at the time ( t − L ) , and substituting
Based on Equation (10), which can find N q, q, q at the time (t − L), and substituting
it into Equation (21), we(21),
it into Equation obtain the following:
we obtain the following:
ˆ ( q, q , q
N  ) = N ( q, q , q
 ) = τt − L − Mq
. ..
t − L .. t − L
N̂N ( qq,, qq, q )== NN (q,q,q,q ,qq )t−− LL ==ττt −tL−−L −Mq
ˆ q, . ..

tq− Lt− L
M (22) (22)
From Equations From(19), (20)(19),
Equations and (20)(22),
and thethe
SPD-TDE control law for aparallel
4-DOF par
From Equations (19), (20) and (22),(22), SPD-TDE control
the SPD-TDE control law
lawforfor
a 4-DOF
a 4-DOF parallel
manipulator is manipulator
expressed
manipulator as follows:
is expressed
is expressed
as follows:
as follows:
.
(q(d EE))++
 ..  ..
= τ=
ττ M=M d+
qq *E
+KK * E  ++
E +KKP**E +τ τ −M
−
τ− tLt−− −LL M q
t−
 t −q (23)
M d + KDD K q t −L
L
P
 t   
L 
* *

D
 P    (23)
Injecting
Injectingdesired TDE TDE
desireddynam ics
desired dynam ics TDE
Injecting dynamics

The closed-loop
The closed-loop dynamics
dynamics
The closed-loop areareproduced
dynamics produced
are produced by
bybyreplacing
replacing Equations
replacing Equations Equations (22)
(22) and
and(22) (23)
andwith
(23) with (23)
robot dynamics (10): (10):
robot dynamics
robot dynamics (10):
( q) −− ( )
.
..
e +KK *DEE ++K =M
K P* EE= −11
− N . ..

qq,, qq,
,q NN q,q,
q , q. ..


h i
e+ M N 
q, t − L t− L
q (24) (24)
e + K D* E + K P* E = M N ( q, q , q  ) − N ( q, q , q
 )t − L 
* *
D P −1

If the identity of N =ofNN

If the identity t−L
= is
Nt −assumed,
L is assumed,thethe
closed
closedloop Equation
loop Equation (18)
(18) is desired
is the the desired
If error error dynamics.
the identity of The stability
is condition
assumed, for
thethe TDE
closed is established
loop by
Equation
= N t − L condition for the TDE is established by Hsia and Gao
N stability Hsia and Gao
(18) [37],
is the des
dynamics. The [37],
expressed using the following:
expressed using
error dynamics. The the following:
stability condition for kI − the
M−1 M TDE
k < 1is established by Hsia and (25) Gao
expressed using the following:
When the close loop system is stable -1
I − M using
M < the
1 stability criterion (25), N − Nt− L is (25)
bounded because N is the sum of continuous terms and bounded discontinuous terms. The
-1
bounded
When TDE loop
the close error εsystem
is defined I−M
isasstable
follows:
usingM <the
1 stability criterion (25), N − N
is t−L

bounded because Ν is the sum of ε , M (Nterms −1

continuous
− Nt− Land) bounded discontinuous(26)terms.
When the close loop system is stable
The bounded TDE error ε is defined as follows: using the stability criterion (25), N − Nt
Then, the closed-loop system dynamics with the TDE becomes the following:
bounded because Ν is the sum of continuous terms and bounded discontinuous te
ε.. M−1 .( N − Nt − L ) (26)
The bounded TDE error ε is defined as e+K
follows:
D* E + KP* E=ε (27)
Then, the closed-loop system dynamics with the TDE becomes the following:
−1
ε  M Nto−the ( )
The TDE error ε is close to 0 in most of the operating time of the robot manipulators;
N L
 + K * Et=−discontinuity
however, it exhibits a pulse-typeerror due of Coulomb friction at
e +KD* E P
ε (27)
velocity reversal.
Then, the closed-loop
ε
system dynamics with the TDE becomes the following:
The TDE error Analysis
3.3. Stability is close to 0 in most of the operating time of the robot manipulators;
however, it exhibits a pulse-type
The boundedness of ε canerror
e +K
be dueE
proved intoKthe
+the Ediscontinuity
same =manner
ε as the of Coulomb
stability friction
proof in [31]. at
D* P*
velocity reversal.
The TDE error ε is close to 0 in most of the operating time of the robot manipula
3.3. Stability Analysis
however, it exhibits a pulse-type error due to the discontinuity of Coulomb frictio
The boundedness of ε can be proved in the same manner as the stability proof in
velocity reversal.
Machines 2023, 11, 831 9 of 21

The desired error dynamics can be described in different forms based on (20) and (27)
as follows:
..
ε = u−q (28)
Equation (29) is calculated by multiplying (28) with M and combined with Equation (9)
as follows: ..

Mε = M u − q
.
= Mu + Cq + G + τf − τ (29)
.
= Mu + Cq + G + τf − Mu − Nt− L
Referring to Equation (10), the time-delayed nonlinear component L can be presented
as follows:
 .. .

 
Nt− L = Mt− L − M qt− L + Cq t− L + Gt− L + (τf )t− L + JT Fext

+ (I − α)τt− L (30)
t− L

Substituting (30) into (29), we have the following:

..
Mε = M − M u − Mt− L − M qt− L + ∆d


(31)
. .
where ∆d = Cq + G + τf + Cq t− L + Gt− L + (τf )t− L + JT Fext t− L + (I − α)τt− L .

It is evident that ∆d is bounded for a small enough L. From Equation (28), we can
..
determine qt− L as follows:
..
qt − L = ut − L − εt − L (32)
Utilizing (32) to (31), Equation (31) can be rewritten as follows:

.. ..
Mε = M − M u − M − M qt− L + (M − Mt− L )qt− L + ∆d


..
= M − M u − M − M (ut− L − εt− L ) + (M − Mt− L )qt− L + ∆d



(33)
..
= M − M εt− L + M − M (u − ut− L ) + (M − Mt− L )qt− L + ∆d

Equation (33) can be rewritten as follows:

..
ε = (I − M−1 M)εt− L + (I − M−1 M)(u − ut− L ) + M−1 (M − Mt− L )qt− L + ∆d
 
(34)

Equation (34) is simplified by putting the variables as follows:

..
Q = I − M−1 M, α1 = u − ut− L , α2 = M−1 (M − Mt− L )qt− L + ∆d
 
(35)

Therefore, the desired error dynamics ε is given using the following:

ε = Qεt− L + Qα1 + α2 (36)

For an adequate small time-delayed L, α1 and α2 are bounded.

Equation (36) can be expressed in the discrete-time domain as follows:

ε(k ) = Q(k)ε(k − 1) + Q(k)α1 (k) + α2 (k) (37)

So, if kQk < 1, then roots Q(k) reside inside a unit circle, and (37) is asymptotically
bounded with bounded forcing functions α1 and α2 .

4. Experiment
4.1. Experiment Description
An experiment testbench is built, as shown in Figure 5, including a 4-DOF parallel
manipulator and a control cabinet. Firstly, a 4-DOF parallel manipulator is formed using a
base platform made of steel, four upper arms and four lower arms made of aluminum and
carbon, and a moving platform made of plastic. Four AC servo motors Mitsubishi 400 W
and four gears rate 1:25 actives for four arms make up the move end-effector, following the
 Machines 2023, 11, 831 10 of 21

preset trajectory, which is attached on a moving platform. Secondly, a control cabinet to

control a 4-DOF parallel robot consists of a four-driver MR-JE-40A to the amplifier control
signal for four AC Servo, a control box that provides voltage control signals for four-drive
MR-JE-40A, according to the torque control mode and the electric devices, such as a circuit
Machines
Machines2023,
2023,11,
11,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1111ofof2323
break, contractor, noise filter module, and DC supply voltage module. Finally, the operating
process of the system is described in Figure 6.

Upper
Upper
Base
Base arm
arm
platform
platform
Driver
Driver
Lower
Lower Control
Control
MR-JE-40A
MR-JE-40A
arm
arm Box
Box

Moving
Moving
platform
platform

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure5.5.
Figure 5.An
Anexperimental
experimentaltestbench:
experimental testbench:(a)
testbench: (a)4-DOF
4-DOFparallel
parallelmanipulator;
manipulator;(b)
manipulator; (b)Control
(b) Controlcabinet.
Control cabinet.
cabinet.

GUI
GUIcontrol
control

PC
PCsystem
system
Volts
Volts
STM32
STM32F407G
F407G 4 4Driver
Driver
MATLAB
MATLABSimulink
Simulink 4 4AC
ACServo
Servo Encoder
Encoder
Master
Master MR-JE-40A
MR-JE-40A
software
software(Waijung
(Waijung Encoder
Encoder
blockset
blocksetlibrary)
library) signal
signal
Can busbus
Can

STM32
STM32F407G
F407G Volts
Volts
Slave
Slave

Figure
Figure6.6.
Figure 6.Description
Descriptionofof
Description ofthe
theoperating
the operatingstructure
operating structureofof
structure ofthe
thesystem.
the system.
system.

Based
Basedon
Based onFigure
Figure
Figure 6,6,6,
the
thecontrollers
the controllers
controllers are
are built
arebuilt on
onthe
built on MATLAB
thethe
MATLAB
MATLAB Simulink
Simulink
Simulink2019a
2019a using
2019ausing the
the
using
Waijung
the
Waijung block
Waijungblock set
setlibrary.
block After
Afterthat,
set library.
library. that,these
After theseprograms
that, these are
areembedded
programs
programs into
are embedded
embedded intothe STM32
into
the the F407G
STM32 STM32
F407G
F407G
board. board.
board.There
Thereare There
aretwo are
twoSTM32
STM32twoF407G
STM32 F407Gused
F407Gboards
boards boards
usedhere, used
here, and here,
andthey and
they they communicate
communicate
communicate via
viathe
theCanvia
Can
the
bus Can bus protocol.
busprotocol.
protocol. Each
EachSTM32
STM32Each STM32
F407G
F407G F407G
board
board board provides
provides
provides a asignal acontrol
signalfor
signalcontrol control for two-drive
fortwo-drive
two-drive MR-JE-
MR-JE-
MR-JE-40A
40A
40Aand
andmakes andthe
makes makes
the AC the
ACServo AC
Servo Servo
motos
motos run.motos
run. For run.
Forthe For the
theSTM32
STM32 STM32
F407G
F407G F407G
Master
Master Master
board,
board, board,
ititnot
notonly
onlyit
not only
provides provides
providesa acontrol a
controlsignalcontrol
signalfor signal
forthe for
thedrivers the
driversbut drivers
butalso but
alsoreads also
readsthe reads the
theencoder encoder
encodersignals
signalsfromsignals
frommotors from
motors
motors
throughthrough
through the the corresponding
thecorresponding
corresponding drives
drivesatatdrives
each at
eachjoint. each
joint. joint. Furthermore,
Furthermore,
Furthermore, the
theSTM32
STM32theF407G
STM32
F407GMasterF407G
Master
Master
board board
boardalso
also also receives
receives
receives controlcontrol
control commandscommands
commands from
fromGuifrom Gui control
Guicontrol
control and and shows
andshows
shows the the responses
theresponses
responses ofoftheof
the
the system
system
system intuitively.
intuitively.
intuitively.

4.2.
4.2. Experiment
4.2.Experiment
ExperimentIndexIndex
Index
This
This section
Thissection presents
sectionpresents the
presentsthe experimental
theexperimental
experimentalindexindex
indexofof three
ofthree controllers
threecontrollers
controllersonon
onaaa4-DOF
4-DOF parallel
4-DOFparallel
parallel
robot:
robot: PD, SPD, and SPD-TDE. The controllers are programmed on MATLAB Simulink
robot:PD,PD,SPD,
SPD,andandSPD-TDE.
SPD-TDE.The Thecontrollers
controllersare areprogrammed
programmedon onMATLAB
MATLABSimulinkSimulink
2019a and integrated into the Waijung block set library to support the embedded program
2019a
2019aandandintegrated
integratedinto
intothe
theWaijung
Waijungblock
blockset
setlibrary
librarytotosupport
supportthetheembedded
embeddedprogram
program
for the STM32 board to provide analog control signals to the motor driver. Moreover, a
for
forthe
theSTM32
STM32boardboardtotoprovide
provideanalog
analogcontrol
controlsignals
signalstotothethemotor
motordriver.
driver.Moreover,
Moreover,a a
circle trajectory, as calculated using expression (38), is set with the execution time of 40 s.
circle
circletrajectory,
trajectory,asascalculated
calculatedusing
usingexpression
expression(38),(38),isisset
setwith
withthe
theexecution
executiontime
timeofof4040s.s.
The operating frequency is 0.2π. The radius is 100 mm. The sampling time of the system is
The
Theoperating
operatingfrequency
frequencyisis 0.2 
0.2 . The
. Theradius
radius is 100
is 100mm.mm. The
Thesampling
sampling time
time of
ofthe
thesystem
system
0.005 s, and the Solver type is auto.
isis0.005
0.005s,s,and
andthe
theSolver
Solvertype
typeisisauto.
auto.
 PxP=x =100cos
100cos( 0.2  t )t )
( 0.2

P =
 yPy = 100sin
100sin ( ( 0.2t )t )
0.2  (38)
(38)

 PzP=z =−500
−500
Machines 2023, 11, 831 11 of 21


 Px = 100 cos(0.2πt)
P = 100 sin(0.2πt) (38)
 y
Pz = −500
Next, the control coefficients are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The parameters of the controllers.

Controllers Parameters
 
 

PD KP1 = diag 55 55 53.5 40 , KD1 = diag 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.25
 
 

SPD KP2 = diag 55 55 53.5 40 , K
D2 = diag 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.25 ,
β2 = diag 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
KP∗ = diag([4200 4200 4150 4100]), KD∗ = diag([400 400 395 390]),
SPD-TDE β∗ = diag([0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15]), M = diag([0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006]),
L = 0.005

Remark 3. The parameters KP1 , KD1 of the PD control are selected via the trial-and-error method.
Consequently, when incorporating the synchronous method into the PD control, β2 is also designed
and selected according to trial and error, starting from 0, with a step size of 0.1. For the proposed
control method SPD-TDE, the robot operates effectively in reality. The control coefficients are
selected according to the given conditions. The parameter in the diagonal matrix M must be selected
according to the stability condition presented in Equation (25). Then, the coefficient KP* , KD* of
the SPD-TDE control is selected with the initial reference value based on the following relationship
KP1,2 = MKP* , KD1,2 = MKD* . Finally, the delay time is the selected sampling time of the system,
and the value of the synchronous coefficient matrix β* is also selected similarly to the PD control
and SPD control.

In addition, to better demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed controller, the

modeling error and actuator faults are put into the experimental process. The model-
. ..

ing error exists in the N q, q, q term of the Formula (10). Actuator faults or the loss
of efficiency faults of the motors will occur during the operation, and this is expressed
via the coefficient α in Formula (9). In summary, there are three case studies conducted
in this study. In case study 1, the robot 
operates normally, and there no losses of ef-
ficiency faults α = diag 1 1 1

1 . In case study 2, the robot operates with 2 kg
load with α = diag 1 1 1 1 . In case study 3, the robot operates under the af-
fected with a loss of efficiency of the motors during the operation according to the
following scenarios: at the

10th second, the efficiency of motor 1 is reduced by 15%
α = diag 0.85 1 1 1 
; at the 15th second, the efficiency of motor 3 is reduced by 20%
α = diag 0.85 1 0.8 1 ; at the 
20th second the efficiency of the motor 2 reduce by
25% α = diag 0.85 0.75  0.8 1 ; and at the 30th 
second, the efficiency of the motor 4 is
reduced by 30% α = diag 0.85 0.75 0.8 0.7 .
Finally, a well-known method to evaluate the standard deviation of the errors is called
the root-mean-square error (RMSE), and the mathematical expressions are presented as
Formula (39). In this study, the RMSE is used to evaluate the errors in case studies 1, 2, and
3 and to prove most clearly the effectiveness of the proposed method.
s
1 n
n i∑
RMSE = ( s i − o i )2 (39)
=1

where n is samples of modeling errors, si is the desired value, oi is the response value, and
i is a variable.

4.3. Experiment Results

Case Study 1:
 Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
Machines 2023, 11, 831 12 of 21

During the experiment of the robot, data, such as the response of the joint a
During the experiment
tracking of the robot,error,
error, synchronous data,and
suchtheascontrol
the response
signal ofof the controllers,
three joint angle,PD, SPD
tracking error,SPD-TDE,
synchronous wereerror, and the
collected control signal
to visually of three
describe controllers,
the state PD, SPD,
of the robot and
corresponding to
SPD-TDE, were collected to visually describe the state of the robot corresponding to each
controller. Firstly, the joint angle response relative to the desired signal is presente
controller. Firstly,
Figurethe7. joint angle response relative to the desired signal is presented in
Figure 7.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 7. Desired and 7. Desiredsignals
response and response signals
at the joints: (a)atJoint
the joints: (a) Joint
1; (b) Joint 2; (c)1;Joint
(b) Joint 2; (d)
3; and (c) Joint 3;
4. and (d) Jo
4.
The desired and response signals at the four joint angles relative to the reference signal
corresponding to The eachdesired andare
controller response signals
described at the four
in Figure jointsolid
7. The angles relative
black line to
is the
thereference
nal and
reference signal, corresponding
the dashed to eachline
black controller are described
is the response signal inof Figure
the joint 7. angles
The solidwhen black line i
using the PD control.
referenceLikewise,
signal, andthe the
dashed blueblack
dashed line is foristhe
line theSPD control,
response and the
signal dashed
of the joint angles w
red line is for using
the SPD-TDE control.Likewise,
the PD control. Based onthe Figure
dashed7, we
bluecanline
seeisthat
for the
the response
SPD control,of theand the da
joint angles ofredtheline
threeis controllers
for the SPD-TDEcompared to the
control. desired
Based signal is
on Figure 7, very
we can good. Therefore,
see that the response o
to see more clearly the effectiveness
joint angles of the proposed
of the three controllers compared method
to theordesired
the difference
signal isbetween
very good. There
the response to signal and the desired signal, the tracking error at each
see more clearly the effectiveness of the proposed method or the difference joint angle of the betwee
three controllers is shown in the following figure.
response signal and the desired signal, the tracking error at each joint angle of the
Figure 8 controllers
shows the tracking
is shownerrorin theatfollowing
each active joint of the robot according to time.
figure.
The dashed black Figure line shows8 showsthe the
tracking
trackingerror of the
error jointactive
at each angles when
joint of theusing
robottheaccording
PD to
control, the dashed
The dashedblue line shows
black the tracking
line shows error of
the tracking the of
error SPDthecontrol, and the
joint angles when dashed
using the PD
red line shows the
trol, thetracking
dashed error of the
blue line SPD-TDE
shows control.
the tracking Based
error of theonSPDFigure 8, we
control, andcan the dashed
see that the tracking
line shows the tracking error of the SPD-TDE control. Based on Figure 8,the
error of the SPD control and SPD-TDE control is better than we can see
asynchronousthe PDtracking
control. error
In there, theSPD
of the SPD-TDE
controlcontrol is designed
and SPD-TDE based
control on TDE;
is better thanthanks
the asynchro
to this combination, the nonlinear and uncertain components of the system
PD control. In there, the SPD-TDE control is designed based on TDE; thanks to this are eliminated.
Therefore, thebination,
tracking error of the SPD-TDE
the nonlinear controlcomponents
and uncertain gives the best oftracking
the system error
arecompared
eliminated. There
to the other controllers. Next, to demonstrate the necessity of the synchronous
the tracking error of the SPD-TDE control gives the best tracking error compared method for t
robots with closed-loop structures that have many constraints on the fixed
other controllers. Next, to demonstrate the necessity of the synchronous method for ro base and the
movable base, the synchronous error is presented, as shown in the figure below.
 Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14

Machines 2023, 11, 831

with closed-loop structures that have many constraints on the fixed base and the mo
13 of 21
base, the synchronous error is presented, as shown in the figure below.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 8. Tracking 8. at
error Tracking error
each joint: (a)atJoint
each1;joint: (a) Joint
(b) Joint 2; (c)1;Joint
(b) Joint 2; (d)
3; and (c) Joint
Joint 4.
3; and (d) Joint 4.

Figure 9 displays the synchronous error between the joints as well as the diffe
Figure 9 displays the synchronous error between the joints as well as the difference in
in the position error between two adjacent joints. The dashed black line is the synchro
the position error between two adjacent joints. The dashed black line is the synchronous
error of the PD control. The dashed blue line is the synchronous error of the SPD con
error of the PD control. The dashed blue line is the synchronous error of the SPD controller.
The dashed red ler.line
Theis dashed red line iserror
the synchronous the ofsynchronous
the SPD-TDE error of theBased
control. SPD-TDE
on thecontrol.
data in Based o
Figure 9, we can see that the synchronous error of the asynchronous PD control is larger PD cont
data in Figure 9, we can see that the synchronous error of the asynchronous
larger than
than the two controls the two
combined controls
with combined algorithm:
the synchronous with the synchronous
SPD and SPD-TDE.algorithm:
WithSPD and
the synchronous interest, the tracking and synchronous errors are proportional to each other. proport
TDE. With the synchronous interest, the tracking and synchronous errors are
to each other.controllers
Specifically, asynchronous Specifically, willasynchronous controllers errors
have large synchronous will have largetosynchronous
leading large e
tracking errors leading to largeBesides
and contrast. tracking errors
that, the and contrast. error
synchronous Besides that,proposed
of the the synchronous
control error o
still gives the best results. Thereby, the robustness of the TDE method when combinedofwith
proposed control still gives the best results. Thereby, the robustness the TDE me
the synchronous method in this study is confirmed. Next, the control signal at each joint ofNext, the
when combined with the synchronous method in this study is confirmed.
trol signal
the robot is presented in at each 10
Figure joint of the robot is presented in Figure 10 below.
below.
Generally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed method by observing
the graph is only the objective of the observer. Therefore, to increase persuasion, the RMSE
method calculates the root-mean-square error of the tracking error and the synchronous
error in this case. The calculation results are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Root-mean-square error of the tracking error at each joint.

Controllers Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4

PD 0.2493 0.2590 0.2393 0.2357
SPD 0.2397 0.2537 0.2333 0.2355
SPD-TDE 0.0216 0.0207 0.0218 0.0270
 Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Machines 2023, 11, 831 14 of 21

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure (c)
9. Synchronous error among the joints: (a) Joints 1 (d)
and 2; (b) Joints 2 and 3; (c) Joints 3 and
4; and (d) Joints 4 and 1.
Figure 9. Synchronous error among the joints: (a) Joints 1 and 2; (b) Joints 2 and 3; (c) Joints 3 and
Figure 9. Synchronous error among the joints: (a) Joints 1 and 2; (b) Joints 2 and 3; (c) Joints 3 and 4;
4; and (d) Joints 4 and 1.
and (d) Joints 4 and 1.

Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 10. Signal 10. input
control Signalatcontrol input(a)atJoint
each joint: each1;joint: (a) Joint
(b) Joint 2; (c)1;Joint
(b) Joint 2; (c)
3; and (d) Joint
Joint 3;
4. and (d) Joint 4.

Generally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed method by obser

the graph is only the objective of the observer. Therefore, to increase persuasion, the R
method calculates the root-mean-square error of the tracking error and the synchro
error in this case. The calculation results are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Machines 2023, 11, 831 15 of 21

Table 4. Root-mean-square error of the synchronous error among two adjacent joints.

Controllers Joints 1 and 2 Joints 2 and 3 Joints 3 and 4 Joints 4 and 1

PD 0.1781 0.1834 0.1233 0.1437
SPD 0.1328 0.1530 0.1100 0.1342
SPD-TDE 0.0264 0.0275 0.0271 0.0297

Based on Tables 3 and 4, we can conclude that the proposed method SPD-TDE has the
best error quality compared to the remaining controllers. Next, to see the effectiveness of
the synchronous and TDE method applied to a 4-DOF parallel robot. In case study 2, we
carried out the robot carrying a load of 2 kg during the operation process.
CaseREVIEW
Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER Study 2: 17
In this case, the robot is loaded with a mass of 2 kg. Then, the tracking error at each
joint of the robot is presented in Figure 11.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 11. Tracking 11. at
error Tracking error
each joint: (a)atJoint
each1;joint: (a) Joint
(b) Joint 2; (c)1;Joint
(b) Joint 2; (d)
3; and (c) Joint 4.
3; and (d) Joint 4.

Based on Figure 11, on

Based when the 11,
Figure robot is loaded,
when the robottheistracking
loaded,performance of the con- of the
the tracking performance
trollers decreases. However,
trollers thanks
decreases. to the compensation
However, of uncertaintyof
thanks to the compensation components
uncertaintyincomponents
the i
system of the TDE method, the tracking quality of the SPD-TDE method is still better
system of the TDE method, the tracking quality of the SPD-TDE method is still better than
the other controllers.
the otherMoreover, carrying
controllers. the load
Moreover, also the
carrying makesloadthe robot
also deviation
makes larger
the robot deviation l
between the joints of the robot, and the synchronous method also overcomes this problem.
between the joints of the robot, and the synchronous method also overcomes this prob
Therefore, the Therefore,
tracking quality of the SPD
the tracking is better
quality than
of the the is
SPD asynchronous PD control.
better than the Next, PD co
asynchronous
the synchronous error
Next, theofsynchronous
the robot is shown
error ofintheFigure
robot12.is shown in Figure 12.
 trollers decreases. However, thanks to the compensation of uncertainty components i
system of the TDE method, the tracking quality of the SPD-TDE method is still better
the other controllers. Moreover, carrying the load also makes the robot deviation l
between the joints of the robot, and the synchronous method also overcomes this prob
Machines 2023, 11, 831 Therefore, the tracking quality of the SPD is better than the asynchronous
16 of 21 PD con
Next, the synchronous error of the robot is shown in Figure 12.

Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Synchronous Synchronous
error among theerror among
joints: the 1joints:
(a) Joints and 2;(a)(b)
Joints
Joints1 2and
and2;3;(b)
(c)Joints
Joints23and
and3;4;(c) Joints
and (d) Joints 44;
andand
1. (d) Joints 4 and 1.

Figure 12 shows Figure

the12 shows the synchronous
synchronous error betweenerror two between
adjacent two adjacent
joints joints of the r
of the robot.
Thanks to the Thanks to the characteristics
characteristics of the closed-loopof the closed-loop
structure, structure,
the load the loadshared
will be equally will befor
equally sh
each kinematicfor eachofkinematic
chain the robot.chain of thethe
However, robot. However,
reduction in thethe reduction in
synchronous the synchronous pe
performance
mance
of the robot still of the
occurs. Butrobot still occurs.
the application ofBut
the the application
synchronous of the synchronous
algorithm algorithm ha
has significantly
improved thenificantly
tracking improved
quality of the
the tracking
SPD andquality
SPD-TDEof the SPD and SPD-TDE
controllers. controllers.
In particular, the In pa
lar, the gives
SPD-TDE controller SPD-TDEmuchcontroller gives much error
better synchronous betterresults
synchronous errorcontrollers
than other results than other
thanks to the compensation
trollers thanksof todynamic components
the compensation in the system.
of dynamic components in the system.
In addition, theIn root-mean-square error of the tracking
addition, the root-mean-square error oferror and synchronous
the tracking error and error
synchronous
are also calculated andcalculated
are also shown in and
Tables 5 andin6.Tables 5 and 6.
shown

Table 5. Root-mean-square error of the tracking

Table 5. Root-mean-square errorerror
of theattracking
each joint.
error at each joint.

Controllers Joint 1
Controllers JointJoint
1 2 JointJoint
2 3 JointJoint
3 4 Joint 4
PD PD0.3590 0.3590
0.3525 0.3525
0.3062 0.3062
0.3618 0.3618
SPD SPD0.3400 0.3400
0.3452 0.3452
0.3032 0.3032
0.3602 0.3602
SPD-TDE SPD-TDE
0.0271 0.0271
0.0253 0.0253
0.0260 0.0260
0.0285 0.0285

Table 6. Root-mean-square error of the synchronous error among two adjacent joints.
Table 6. Root-mean-square error of the synchronous error among two adjacent joints.
Controllers Joints 1 and 2 Joints 2 and 3 Joints 3 and 4 Joints 4 an
Controllers Joints 1 and 2 Joints 2 and 3 Joints 3 and 4 Joints 4 and 1
PD 0.2308 0.2408 0.1512 0.1767
PD
SPD0.2308 0.2408
0.1837 0.1512
0.1975 0.1767
0.1310 0.1704
SPD 0.1837
SPD-TDE 0.1975
0.0337 0.1310
0.0305 0.1704
0.0324 0.0364
SPD-TDE 0.0337 0.0305 0.0324 0.0364
From Tables 5 and 6, we can see that the error quality of the synchronous cont
better than the asynchronous control. Moreover, the ability to estimate and eliminat
uncertainty term in the system. So, the control method SPD-TDE obtains the smalle
ror.
Next, to see the robustness of combining the SPD control method with the
method, in case study 3, actuator faults in the system are established on the real mod
Machines 2023, 11, 831 17 of 21

From Tables 5 and 6, we can see that the error quality of the synchronous control is
better than the asynchronous control. Moreover, the ability to estimate and eliminate the
uncertainty term in the system. So, the control method SPD-TDE obtains the smallest error.
Next, to see the robustness of combining the SPD control method with the TDE method,
in case study 3, actuator faults in the system are established on the real model, as mentioned
in the experiment index.
Case study 3:
Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 o
In this case, the loss of efficiency of the motors during the operation will be introduced
into the system to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Firstly, the
tracking error at each joint is shown in Figure 13.

15% 25%

(a) (b)

20% 30%

(c) (d)
Figureerror
Figure 13. Tracking 13. Tracking error(a)
at each joint: at each
Joint joint:
1; (b) (a) Joint
Joint 1; (b)
2; (c) Joint
Joint 2; (c)
3; and (d)Joint
Joint3;4.and (d) Joint 4.

Figure
Figure 13 shows the13 showserror
tracking the tracking errorinatthe
at each joint each
casejoint in the
of the case ofofthe
influence influence of mo
modeling
ing error
error and actuator and Based
faults. actuatoron faults. Based
the figure, weon thesee
can figure, we can see
that although thatare
there although
adversethere are
effects on theverse effects
system, theon the system,of
sustainability thethesustainability
proposed method of the isproposed method
still strongly is still stron
shown.
Specifically, shown. Specifically,
the tracking error ofthe thetracking
SPD-TDE error of the
control SPD-TDE
is much bettercontrol is much
than the better than
tracking
tracking
error of the PD controlerror
andofthe theSPD
PD control
control.andNext,thethe
SPD control. Next,
synchronous the in
error, synchronous
this case, iserror, in
shown in Figure
case,14.
is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 shows
Figurethe 14
synchronous error betweenerror
shows the synchronous the joints of thethe
between robot.
jointsWhen
of themodeling
robot. When mo
errors and actuator
ing errorsfaults, the errors
and actuator are impacted
faults, the errors at aredifferent
impacted times, and the
at different deviation
times, and the devia
between joints occurs,joints
between leading to asynchrony
occurs, leading tobetween
asynchronyjoints.between
At that joints.
time, theAtrobustness
that time, the of robustn
the synchronous method is promoted. As a result, the synchronous error of
of the synchronous method is promoted. As a result, the synchronous error of the Sthe SPD control
and the SPD-TDE
controlcontrol
and the is SPD-TDE
better than the asynchronous
control is better thanPD thecontrol, and thePD
asynchronous error of theand the e
control,
SPD-TDE control
of theisSPD-TDE
the smallest.control is the smallest.
In this case, the root-mean-square error is calculated and expressed in Tables 7 and 8.
 Machines 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20
Machines 2023, 11, 831 18 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 14.errors
Figure 14. Synchronous Synchronous
among the errors among
joints: the joints:
(a) Joints 1 and (a) Joints
2; (b) 1 and
Joints 2; (b)
2 and Joints
3; (c) 2 and
Joints 3; (c) Joints
3 and
4; and (d) Joints 4 and 1.
4; and (d) Joints 4 and 1.

In thiserror
Table 7. Root-mean-square case,ofthe
the root-mean-square
tracking error at eacherror
joint.is calculated and expressed in Tables
8.
Controllers Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4
PD Table 7. Root-mean-square
0.3590 error of the tracking error
0.3525 at each joint.
0.3062 0.3618
SPD 0.3400
Controllers Joint0.3452
1 Joint0.3032
2 Joint0.3602
3 Joint 4
SPD-TDE PD0.0271 0.3590
0.0253 0.3525
0.0260 0.3062
0.0285 0.3618
SPD 0.3400 0.3452 0.3032 0.3602
SPD-TDE
Table 8. Root-mean-square 0.0271
error of the synchronous 0.0253
error among 0.0260
two adjacent joints. 0.0285

ControllersTable 8.Joints 1 and 2

Root-mean-squareJoints 2 and
error of 3 Jointserror
the synchronous 3 andamong
4 Joints
two 4 and joints.
adjacent 1
PD 0.2308 0.2408 0.1512 0.1767
Controllers Joints 1 and 2 Joints 2 and 3 Joints 3 and 4 Joints 4 an
SPD 0.1837 0.1975 0.1310 0.1704
PD 0.2308 0.2408 0.1512 0.1767
SPD-TDE SPD0.0337 0.0305
0.1837 0.0324
0.1975 0.0364
0.1310 0.1704
SPD-TDE 0.0337 0.0305 0.0324 0.0364
From Tables 7 and 8, we can realize that the error quality of the SPD-TDE control is
much smaller thanFromthe other controllers,
Tables and
7 and 8, we the
can SPD control
realize that thehas anquality
error error quality
of the better
SPD-TDE cont
than the PD control.
much smaller than the other controllers, and the SPD control has an when
From that, the effectiveness of the proposed method is revealed error quality b
applied to a 4-DOF parallel robot. The operating performance of the system, as well as the
than the PD control. From that, the effectiveness of the proposed method is revealed
capability trajectory tracking of the end-effector, has improved significantly.
applied to a 4-DOF parallel robot. The operating performance of the system, as well a
5. Conclusions capability trajectory tracking of the end-effector, has improved significantly.
This paper proposed the SPD-TDE control for a 4-DOF parallel manipulator under
the existence of nonlinear and uncertain components in the system, including modeling
error and actuator faults. The proposed control is built based on the combination of SPD
Machines 2023, 11, 831 19 of 21

control with the TDE method. The 4-DOF parallel robot system has a closed-loop structure,
and the binding occurs between the fixed base and the movable base via the identical
kinematic sequences. At that time, the synchronous method solved the asynchronous
problem between the joints of the robot by designing a synchronous algorithm based on
the cross-coupling error. When the cross-coupling error converges to zero or when both the
tracking and synchronous errors converge to zero simultaneously, the synchronous aim
has been accomplished. In addition, the TDE method provided a simple control structure
and eliminated the nonlinear and uncertain components in the system using time-delayed
information. As a result, the operating performance of the robot and trajectory tracking
quality are significantly improved. The experimental process is divided into three different
case studies, and the results of the proposed control are compared with the PD control and
SPD control to demonstrate the sustainability and effectiveness of the proposed method.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.T.T., T.N.N. and X.T.N.; methodology, D.T.T., T.N.N.
and X.T.N.; software, X.T.N. and D.M.N.; validation, T.N.N., X.T.N. and D.M.N.; formal analysis,
T.N.N., X.T.N. and D.M.N.; investigation, D.T.T.; resources, D.T.T.; data curation T.N.N., X.T.N. and
D.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, T.N.N., X.T.N. and D.M.N.; writing—review and editing,
D.T.T.; visualization, X.T.N. and D.M.N.; supervision, D.T.T.; project administration, D.T.T.; funding
acquisition, D.T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work belongs to the project grant No: B2022-SPK-03. funded by Ministry of Education
and Training and hosted by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
For the first arm, the formula of E1 , F1 , and G1 is presented as follows:

E1 = 2L1 Z
F1 = 2L1 r − 2L1 X cos α1 − L1 d cos α1 − 2L1 d1 cos α1 − 2L1 Y sin α1 − 2L1 h1 sin α1 + 2L1 h cos α1 sin θ
−2L1 h sin α1 cos θ
G1 = − E1 sin q1 − F1 cos q1

For the second arm, the formula of E2 , F2 , and G2 is presented as follows:

E2 = 2L1 Z
F2 = 2L1 r − 2L1 X cos α2 + L1 d cos α2 + 2L1 d2 cos α2 − 2L1 Y sin α2 − 2L1 h2 sin α2 + 2L1 h cos α2 sin θ
−2L1 h sin α2 cos θ
G2 = − E2 sin q2 − F2 cos q2

For the third arm, the formula of E3 , F3 , and G3 is presented as follows:

E3 = 2L3 Z
F3 = 2L1 r − 2L1 X cos α3 + L1 d cos α3 + 2L1 d3 cos α3 − 2L1 Y sin α3 + 2L1 h3 sin α3
G3 = − E3 sin q3 − F3 cos q3

For the fourth arm, the formula of E4 , F4 and G4 is presented as follows:

E4 = 2L4 Z
F4 = 2L1 r − 2L1 X cos α4 − L1 d cos α4 − 2L1 d4 cos α3 − 2L1 Y sin α4 + 2L1 h4 sin α4
G4 = − E4 sin q4 − F3 cos q4
Machines 2023, 11, 831 20 of 21

References
1. Xu, L.; Li, Y. Investigation of joint clearance effects on the dynamic performance of a planar 2-DOF pick-and-place parallel
manipulator. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2014, 30, 62–73.
2. Wang, D.; Wu, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y. A Postprocessing Strategy of a 3-DOF Parallel Tool Head Based on Velocity Control and Coarse
Interpolation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 6333–6342.
3. Bourbonnais, F.; Bigras, P.; Bonev, I.A. Minimum-Time Trajectory Planning and Control of a Pick-and-Place Five-Bar Parallel
Robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2015, 20, 740–749. [CrossRef]
4. Gonzalez-de-Santos, P.; Fernández, R.; Sepúlveda, D.; Navas, E.; Emmi, L.; Armada, M. Field Robots for Intelligent Farms—Inhering
Features from Industry. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1638. [CrossRef]
5. Musa, M.; Sengupta, S.; Chen, Y. Design of a 6-DoF Parallel Robotic Platform for MRI Applications. J. Med. Robot. Res. 2022, 7,
2241005. [CrossRef]
6. Dasgupta, B.; Mruthyunjaya, T.S. The Stewart platform manipulator: A review. Mech. Mach. Theory 2000, 35, 15–40. [CrossRef]
7. Pandilov, Z.; Dukovski, V. Comparison of the characteristics between serial and parallel robots. Acta Tech. Corviniensis-Bull. Eng.
2014, 7, 143–160.
8. Ghorbel, F.H.; Chetelat, O.; Gunawardana, R.; Longchamp, R. Modeling and set point control of closed-chain mechanisms: Theory
and experiment. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2000, 8, 801–815. [CrossRef]
9. Villarreal-Cervantes, M.G.; Alvarez-Gallegos, J. Off-line PID control tuning for a planar parallel robot using DE variants. Expert
Syst. Appl. 2016, 64, 444–454. [CrossRef]
10. Azmoun, M.; Rouhollahi, A.; Masouleh, M.T.; Kalhor, A. Kinematics and Control of a 4-DOF Delta Parallel Manipulator. In
Proceedings of the 2018 6th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (IcRoM), Tehran, Iran, 23–25 October
2018; pp. 494–500.
11. Hadoune, O.; Benouaret, M. Fuzzy-PID tracking control of a ball and plate system using a 6 Degrees-of-Freedom parallel robot.
In Proceedings of the 2022 19th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD), Setif, Algeria, 6–10 May
2022; pp. 1906–1912.
12. Jin, L.; Li, S.; Yu, J.; He, J. Robot manipulator control using neural networks: A survey. Neurocomputing 2018, 285, 23–34. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, S.; Peng, G.; Gao, H. Dynamic modeling and terminal sliding mode control of a 3-DOF redundantly actuated parallel
platform. Mechatronics 2019, 60, 26–33. [CrossRef]
14. Soriano, L.A.; Rubio, J.D.; Orozco, E.; Cordova, D.A.; Ochoa, G.; Balcazar, R.; Cruz, D.R.; Meda-Campaña, J.A.; Zacarias, A.;
Gutierrez, G.J. Optimization of Sliding Mode Control to Save Energy in a SCARA Robot. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3160. [CrossRef]
15. Mazare, M.; Taghizadeh, M.; Ghaf-Ghanbari, P. Fault-tolerant control based on adaptive super-twisting nonsingular integral-type
terminal sliding mode for a delta parallel robot. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2020, 42, 443. [CrossRef]
16. Godbole, H.A.; Caverly, R.J.; Forbes, J.R. Dynamic Modeling and Adaptive Control of a Single Degree-of-Freedom Flexible
Cable-Driven Parallel Robot. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2019, 141, 101002. [CrossRef]
17. Yao, S.; Gao, G.; Gao, Z.; Li, S. Active disturbance rejection synchronization control for parallel electro-coating conveyor. ISA
Trans. 2020, 101, 327–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Koren, Y. Cross-Coupled Biaxial Computer Control for Manufacturing Systems. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 1980, 102, 265–272.
[CrossRef]
19. Sun, D.; Tong, M.C. A Synchronization Approach for the Minimization of Contouring Errors of CNC Machine Tools. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Sci. Eng. 2009, 6, 720–729.
20. Zhong, G.; Shao, Z.; Deng, H.; Ren, J. Precise Position Synchronous Control for Multi-Axis Servo Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2017, 64, 3707–3717. [CrossRef]
21. Sun, D. Position synchronization of multiple motion axes with adaptive coupling control. Automatica 2003, 39, 997–1005.
[CrossRef]
22. Xu, J.; Lu, H.; Liu, X. Synchronization control strategy in multi-layer and multi-axis systems based on the combine cross coupling
error. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2017, 9, 1687814017711392. [CrossRef]
23. Sun, D.; Lu, R.; Mills, J.K.; Wang, C. Synchronous Tracking Control of Parallel Manipulators Using Cross-coupling Approach. Int.
J. Robot. Res. 2006, 25, 1137–1147. [CrossRef]
24. Shang, W.; Cong, S.; Jiang, S. Synchronization control of a parallel manipulator with redundant actuation in the task space. Int. J.
Robot. Autom. 2011, 26, 432. [CrossRef]
25. Wos, P.; Dindorf, R. Synchronized Trajectory Tracking Control of 3-DoF Hydraulic Translational Parallel Manipulator. In
Mechatronics—Ideas for Industrial Application; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 269–277.
26. Shi, K.; Liu, C.; Sun, Z.; Yue, X. Coupled orbit-attitude dynamics and trajectory tracking control for spacecraft electromagnetic
docking. Appl. Math. Model. 2022, 101, 553–572. [CrossRef]
27. Tran, D.T.; Nha, N.T.; Phung, M.V.; Long, N.P.; Tam, N.M.; Ahn, K.K. Synchronous PID controller for a 4-DOF parallel manipulator
in practice. In Proceedings of the 2022 25th International Conference on Mechatronics Technology (ICMT), Kaohsiung, Taiwan,
18–21 November 2022; pp. 1–4.
28. Zhou, J.; Liu, E.; Tian, X.; Li, Z. Adaptive Fuzzy Backstepping Control Based on Dynamic Surface Control for Uncertain Robotic
Manipulator. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 23333–23341. [CrossRef]
Machines 2023, 11, 831 21 of 21

29. Liu, C.; Yue, X.; Zhang, J.; Shi, K. Active Disturbance Rejection Control for Delayed Electromagnetic Docking of Spacecraft in
Elliptical Orbits. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2022, 58, 2257–2268. [CrossRef]
30. Cho, S.-j.; Jin, M.; Kuc, T.-Y.; Lee, J.S. Control and synchronization of chaos systems using time-delay estimation and supervising
switching control. Nonlinear Dyn. 2014, 75, 549–560. [CrossRef]
31. Hyo-Jeong, B.; Maolin, J.; Jinho, S.; Jun Young, L.; Pyung-Hun, C.; Doo-sung, A. Control of Robot Manipulators Using Time-Delay
Estimation and Fuzzy Logic Systems (in Korean). J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2017, 12, 1271–1279.
32. Wang, Y.; Peng, J.; Zhu, K.; Chen, B.; Wu, H. Adaptive PID-fractional-order nonsingular terminal sliding mode control for
cable-driven manipulators using time-delay estimation. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2020, 51, 3118–3133. [CrossRef]
33. Duong, T.T.; Nguyen, C.C.; Tran, T.D. Synchronization Sliding Mode Control of Closed-Kinematic Chain Robot Manipulators
with Time-Delay Estimation. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5527. [CrossRef]
34. Duong, T.T.C.; Thien, T.D.; Tri, N.T.; Nghi, D.V. Synchronization Sliding Mode Control with Time-Delay Estimation for a
2-DOF Closed-Kinematic Chain Robot Manipulator. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on System Science and
Engineering (ICSSE), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 26–28 August 2021; pp. 38–43.
35. Corbel, D.; Nabat, V.; Maurine, P. Geometrical calibration of the high speed robot Par4 using a laser tracker. In Proceedings
of the MMAR’06: 12th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics, Miedzyzdroje, Poland,
28–31 August 2006; pp. 687–692.
36. M’hiri, S.A.; Ben Romdhane, N.M.; Damak, T. New Forward Kinematic Model of Parallel Robot Par4. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2019,
96, 283–295. [CrossRef]
37. Hsia, T.C.; Gao, L.S. Robot manipulator control using decentralized linear time-invariant time-delayed joint controllers. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 13–18 May 1990; Volume 3,
pp. 2070–2075.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.