International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems

IJRCS Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

ISSN 2775-2658
http://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/ijrcs

Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback

Linearization Based on Sliding Mode Control
Walid Kh. Alqaisi a,1, Mostafa Soliman a,2,*, Ahmed Badawi a,2,*, I.M. Elzein a,3,
Claude Ziad El-Bayeh b,4
a College of Engineering and Technology, University of Doha for Science and Technology, 24449 Arab League St, Doha,
Qatar
b Canada Excellence Research Chair Team, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
1 walid.alqaisi@udst.edu.qa; 2 mostafa.soliman@udst.edu.qa; 3 ahmedbadawi100@gmail.com;
4 4360101973@udst.edu.qa; 5 c.bayeh@hotmail.com

* Corresponding Author

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the performance of a four-degree-of-freedom

Article history (4DOF) robot arm using feedback linearization based on sliding mode
Received December 04, 2024 control (FLSM). FLSM simplifies complex nonlinear control solutions and
Revised January 11, 2025
mitigates the effects of the highly coupled dynamic behavior of the 4DOF
Accepted February 15, 2025
manipulator. The controller takes into account uncertain dynamics and
unexpected disturbances such as changes in payload, variations in wind,
Keywords
and gravity effects in different directions. The stability of the proposed
Robot Arm;
Manipulator;
controller is achieved using the manipulator model and FLSM without
4DOF Robot; linearizing the model. Stability is analyzed using a Lyapunov function, and
Feedback Linearization; MATLAB Simulink is utilized to simulate the real parameters of the
Sliding Mode Control Quanser QArm. The results are compared with those obtained using a PID
controller.

This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license.

1. Introduction
In recent decades, robotics control methodologies for nonlinear mechanical systems have
garnered significant attention from researchers [1]. An important example is a robot manipulator arm,
which poses a challenge due to its highly nonlinear nature and coupled dynamics. The additional
degrees of freedom enhance flexibility and resolution, allowing a wider range of tasks to be performed.
In the industrial manufacturing sector, there is an increasing preference for multi-axis robots, such as
4-DOF configurations. This trend is particularly significant in processes like laser tracking and
industrial welding, where increased flexibility can lead to improved processing precision [2].
However, the complexity of dynamics associated with higher DOFs in multi-axis robots poses
challenges for accurate trajectory tracking. Furthermore, operations involving high payloads may
intensify these challenges, resulting in considerable disturbances. Therefore, the implementation of a
robust controller is crucial for effective tracking in multi-axis robotic systems. This research focuses
on the development of a controller for a 4-DOF robot manipulator [3], In academic literature,
numerous approaches have been proposed to manage manipulator robots. Friction in joints is
addressed by using a robust control method to control a two-degree-of-freedom manipulator robot [4],
[5]. An adaptive control structure was implemented in [6] to mitigate the adverse effects of
unidentified nonlinearities. An optimal control of a linearized feedback is used in [7], [8]. A fast

http://dx.doi.org/10.31763/ijrcs.v5i2.1729 ijrcs@ascee.org
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
782 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

predictive control for a high speed robot arm is used in [9]. A feedforward neural network was
constructed to solve the problematic inverse kinematics of a robotic planar manipulator with three
degrees of freedom [10], where the accuracy of trajectory generation in Cartesian space is crucial for
controlling the robot arm. Backstepping control is used with disturbance and uncertainty estimation
using a neural network is used in [11]. Hierarchical ML for a manipulator is used in [12]. Reference
[13] proposed a hybrid control method for a three-link robotic arm consisting of joint control designed
in space configuration and sliding mode control. Reference [14] suggests a time-optimal trajectory for
a robotic system using a convex optimization approach. An adaptive control system was developed
for a robotic arm in [15], incorporating linear quadratic techniques to enhance performance. An
optimal adaptive sliding mode was implemented and tested with a disturbance observer on a robot
arm in [16]. Observability analysis is used to drive linearized feedback is used in [17]. Three methods
of nonlinear predictive control were developed in [18] to supervise two interconnected vertical
manipulator robots. An adaptive radial-based controller was used in [19]. Reference [20]
recommended anticipating a robotic manipulator of a nonlinear model mounted on an autonomous
platform. Feedback linearization for a quadrotor was successfully implemented in [21]. Multivariable
super-twisting control was introduced to tackle uncertainties in [22] and [23]. A hierarchical
perturbation controller was introduced in [24].
Reference [25] used a modified PD control law with Taylor-series compensation to achieve
robust reference tracking. Conversely, conventional feedback linearization controllers are designed to
ensure that the system converges asymptotically to zero. The work cited in [26] presents an innovative
adaptive continuous sliding mode strategy designed to tackle uncertainties and alleviate the chattering
phenomena often encountered during control operations. References [27] and [28] explore a
nonsingular fast terminal second-order sliding mode methodology for robotic manipulators based on
feedback linearization principles. Furthermore, a hierarchical perturbation compensation system
incorporating an exponential reaching law sliding mode controller is examined in the quadrotor
framework in [29].
SMC has become a prominent control technology, recognized for its simplicity and effectiveness
in handling uncertainties and disturbances. The stability and stabilization aspects of SMC are
fundamentally anchored in the principles of Lyapunov theory, providing a framework for establishing
asymptotic stability. SMC is specifically engineered to maintain robust control performance in the
presence of confined disturbances and uncertainties. It has become a fundamental technique to address
parametric uncertainties inherent in complex multi-input multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems.
Conventional and high-order SMC is introduced in reference [30]. A design for a second-order sliding
mode controller that incorporates output constraints is presented in reference [31]. Additionally,
reference [32] discusses a novel adaptive sliding-mode control scheme specifically tailored for robot
manipulators.
Driven by the benefits of both SMC and Feedback Linearization, a controller that combines these
two approaches, termed Feedback Linearization based Sliding Mode Control (FLSM), has been
developed based on extensive research. Feedback Linearization is employed as a nonlinear design
technique to address the nonlinear dynamics of the mechanical system efficiently. The controller is
structured in two loops: the inner loop addresses the significant nonlinearities of the robot arm
parameters, while the outer loop integrates the robust aspects of the sliding mode controller to manage
nonlinear uncertainties and disturbances. This method is resilient to variations in robot parameters,
and the stability of the quadrotor system and the finite-time convergence of errors are validated using
the Lyapunov function.
The performance improvement of a Feedback Linearization Sliding Mode (FLSM) controller
over a PID controller can be seen in many aspects, FLSM controllers handle system nonlinearities and
uncertainties better than PID controllers, which rely on linear assumptions and tuning. FLSM can
adapt dynamically to changing conditions, resulting in lower overshoot and minimal oscillations
compared to PID. The sliding mode aspect of FLSM ensures robust tracking and stability, even in the
presence of external disturbances and modeling errors. FLSM achieves quicker convergence to the

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 783
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

desired setpoint with faster error correction, compared to PID's proportional, integral, and derivative
adjustments. FLSM excels in managing complex, time-varying, or highly coupled systems where PID
may struggle due to its simplicity [33]. The key contributions of this paper are outlined as follows:
• Introducing a control system that effectively addresses nonlinearity without resorting to model
linearization, utilizing feedback linearization principles and adaptive SMC methodologies.
• Mitigating the impact of severe nonlinearity and tightly coupled dynamics, ensuring robust and
precise control.
• Applying the system to the QArm, a four-degree-of-freedom system, in an aggressive trajectory
with disturbances.

2. Dynamic Model of the Robot Arm

The dynamic modeling of a robotic arm articulates the correlation between the forces and torques
applied to the robot's joints and the resulting motion [34], [35]. This modeling involves analyzing the
arm's physical attributes, such as mass, inertia, and friction, along with the kinematic and dynamic
equations that govern its operation.
The dynamic model of a robotic arm serves as a mathematical framework that explains how the
arm moves in response to applied forces and torques. It illustrates the interaction between the arm's
physical characteristics and the forces acting on it, including joint torques, gravitational effects, and
frictional forces. This model is essential for predicting the arm's behavior under different conditions
and is crucial for developing control systems that ensure precise and efficient control of the robot's
movements.
Analyzing the dynamics of robot manipulators presents significant challenges. Researchers have
explored various techniques, primarily categorized into the Euler-Lagrange formulation and the
Newton-Euler formulation. The Euler-Lagrange method views the manipulator as a unified system,
focusing on its kinetic and potential energy for analysis. In contrast, the Newton-Euler approach treats
each link of the manipulator individually, starting with forward recursion to describe linear and
angular motions, followed by backward recursion to evaluate forces and torques.
The comparison of efficiency between the Euler-Lagrange and Newton-Euler formulations
remains a prominent topic in the field [36]. The choice of method depends on factors such as the
number of links and joints in the kinematic chain, the chain's topology, the orientation of coordinate
frames, and the use of recursive procedures [37]. Generally, the Newton-Euler formulation is preferred
for manipulators with many degrees of freedom due to its recursive nature, especially when frames
are appropriately configured.
To obtain accurate dynamic parameters, identification techniques leveraging the nonlinearity of
the dynamic model can be employed. The Quanser robot arm manipulator is frequently discussed in
research papers, and maintaining frame assignments is crucial for accurate modeling.
In this section, we will demonstrate the modeling of the Quanser four-degree-of-freedom (DOF)
QArm manipulator. The kinematic diagram in Fig. 1 illustrates the x and z axes of each joint frame,
while the rigid body diagram provides the x, y, or z axes for notation convenience. The third axis can
be determined using the right-hand rule. The dynamic equations can be represented in matrix form as
[29], [38]:

𝜏 = 𝑀(𝜃)𝜃̈ + 𝐵 (𝜃)𝜃̇𝑖 𝜃𝑗̇ + 𝐶 (𝜃)𝜃̇𝑘2 + 𝐺(𝜃) (1)

Where, (𝑖, 𝑗)𝜖 {(1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (2,3), (2,4), (3,4)},
𝑘𝜖 {1,2,3,4}, In this context, (𝑀=Inertia matrix), (𝑩=Coriolis matrix), (𝑪= signifies the
Centrifugal matrix), and (𝑮=Gravity matrix). This representation, referred to as an equation of motion.
It, illustrates that the matrices corresponding to the Coriolis and Centrifugal coefficients are solely

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
784 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

dependent on the manipulator's state 𝜙. It is important to note that certain coefficients within these
matrices may be rendered inapplicable or equal to zero, contingent upon the specific configuration of
the manipulator. For the Quanser Arm, these matrices are structured in a particular manner.

𝜃̇1 𝜃̇2
0 𝑀14 𝜃̈1 ̇ ̇ ̇2
𝜏1 𝑀11 0 𝐵11 𝐵12 0 0 𝐵15 𝐵16 𝜃1 𝜃3 0 0 0 0 𝜃1 0
𝜏2 0 𝑀22 𝑀23 0 𝜃̈2 0 0 𝐵23 𝐵24 0 0 ] ̇1 𝜃̇4 + [𝐶21
𝜃 0 𝐶23 0 𝜃̇22 𝐺2
[𝜏 ] = [
3 0 𝑀32 𝑀33 0] 𝜃̈3 + [ 0 0 𝐵33 0 0 0 𝜃̇2𝜃̇3 𝐶31 𝐶32
]
0 0 𝜃̇32
+𝑔[ ]
𝐺3 (2)
𝜏4 𝑀41 0 0 𝑀44 [𝜃̈ ] 𝐵41 𝐵42 0 0 0 0 𝜃̇ 𝜃̇ 0 0 0 0 [𝜃̇ 2 ] 𝐺4
4 2 4 4
̇
[𝜃3 𝜃4 ]̇

Coefficients denoted by the subscript 𝑚𝑛 signify the relationship between the torque exerted at
the mth joint and the associated 𝑛th kinematic term. For instance, the 𝐵24 coefficient connects the torque
on joint 2, represented as 𝜏2, to the corresponding fourth kinematic term, which is expressed as, 𝜃̇2 𝜃̇3.
According to Fig. 1, the manipulator is currently at the home stage positioning. The joint space vector
𝜋
𝜃 can be represented as, 𝜃 = [0, (𝛽 − 4 ), −𝛽, 0]𝑇 .
Both the actuators and encoders of the manipulator are fully calibrated at this position. To move
the manipulator to the home position, a [0 0 0] T command must be applied. Additionally, the encoder
will also read the joint position as [0 0 0] T. The joint space alternation may be represented as 𝜙⃗. Further
description of the manipulator 𝜙⃗ space is addressed in Table 1. For example, when 𝜙2=0 it will convey
𝜃2=𝛽−𝜋/2. This pertains to joint 2 from the perspective of home position. Further description of the
robot arm model are detailed in [38]. Dynamic parameters for the Qarm shown in Table 2.

Table 1. simplification of mathematical formulation through linear mapping

New Parameter Original Parameter New Parameter Original Parameter
𝜆1 𝐿1 ∅1 𝜃1
𝜋
𝜆2 √𝐿22 + 𝐿23 ∅2 𝜃2 + − 𝛽
2
𝜆3 𝐿4 + 𝐿5 ∅3 𝜃3 + 𝛽
𝐿3
𝛽 tan−1 ( ) ∅4 𝜃4
𝐿2

Fig. 1. Frame diagram of Quanser Arm manipulator [38]

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 785
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Table 2. Dynamic parameters for the Qarm

Parameter Value Parameter Value
𝑚1 0.7906 kg 𝑚2 0.4591 kg
𝜆𝑐1 0.0399 m 𝜆𝑐2 0.1071 m
𝐼1𝐴 1.489 × 10-3 kg m2 𝐼2𝐴 1.922 × 10-4 kg m2
𝑛/𝑎∗ - 𝐼2𝐿 ∗ 1.610 × 10-3 kg m2
Parameter Value Parameter Value
𝑚3 0.269 kg 𝑚4 0.257 kg
𝜆𝑐3 0.1561 m 𝜆𝑐4 0.0998 m
𝐼3𝐴 2.679 × 10-4 kg m2 𝐼4𝐴 6.528 × 10-4 kg m2
𝐼3𝐿 ∗ 2.069 × 10-3 kg m2 𝐼4𝐿 ∗ 1.120 × 10-3 kg m2

3. Controller Design
The procedure for synthesizing the controller is designed to guarantee stability while enabling the
quadrotor to adhere to a specified trajectory. Feedback linearization is a control strategy used to handle
nonlinear systems by transforming them into an equivalent linear system through mathematical
manipulation. This is achieved by designing a control law that cancels out the nonlinear dynamics of
the system, leaving a linearized behavior that can be easily controlled using standard linear control
techniques. It effectively simplifies the design and analysis of controllers for complex systems.
A Lyapunov function is a scalar mathematical function used to assess the stability of a dynamic
system. It is analogous to an "energy-like" measure for the system, where the function decreases over
time for a stable system, indicating that the system's state is converging to an equilibrium point. In
engineering, Lyapunov's direct method leverages this function to prove stability without solving the
system's differential equations explicitly, making it a powerful tool for nonlinear control design.
3.1. Control Algorithm
This section presents the implementation of a robust sliding mode controller that integrates a
Feedback linearization approach. The objective of the proposed system is to achieve asymptotic
convergence of the error while accommodating nonlinear uncertainties and external disturbances. The
linearization process employs an input/output feedback linearization technique, which is executed
through two distinct loops: the inner and outer loops. The inner loop is specifically designed to mitigate
the impact of the system's hard nonlinearity, thereby establishing a relationship between input and
output states and formulating a nonlinear control law. Conversely, the outer loop focuses on regulating
the input/output system to ensure the stabilization of the closed-loop system and to facilitate the
estimation of nonlinear uncertainties. The control system's block diagram is illustrated in Fig. 2. The
primary aim of the input-output system is to establish a direct correlation between the system's output
and its input control action. According to equation (4), the desired input U can be expressed as follows:

𝜏 = 𝑀(𝜃)𝑣 + 𝐵 (𝜃)𝜃̇𝑖 𝜃𝑗̇ + 𝐶 (𝜃)𝜃̇𝑘2 + 𝐺(𝜃) (3)

Knowing that, 𝑣 is a supplementary controlling input to the model and 𝑣= [𝑣1 , 𝑣2 , 𝑣3 , 𝑣4 ]T .
According to (3), a clear and direct relationship between the control input and the system's output exists,
allowing the system to be restructured to emphasize this linkage [39] and [40]:

𝜃̈ =𝑣 +D(t) (4)
Where; D(t) = bounded uncertainty.
Assumption: we assume the term of uncertainties, is globally Lipchitz function.
The desired trajectory 𝜃d is obtained from the required robot mission. E=𝜃-𝜃d ϵRn and Ė =𝜃̇ -
𝜃̇d ϵRn represent the error along its derivation. The sliding variable along its derivation is designated
as per the notations [39]:

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
786 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

𝑆 = 𝐸̇ + Λ𝐸
(5)
𝑆̇ = 𝐸̈ + Λ𝐸̇
Where; Λ = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔(𝜆𝑖𝑖 ) for 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑡𝑜 𝑛 is a diagonal positive definite matrix and (𝑛) is the length
of the states vector. The velocity and acceleration of the desired trajectory 𝜃̇𝑑 , 𝜃̈𝑑 are measurable
quantities in the manipulator. The auxiliary input 𝑣 is designed as described in Equation (6), [40]:

𝑣 = 𝜃̈𝑑 − Λ𝐸̇ − 𝐾 𝑆𝐺𝑁 − 𝐷(𝑡) (6)

Where; 𝐾 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔(𝑘𝑖𝑖 ) for 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑡𝑜 𝑛 is a positive-definite diagonal matrix. 𝑆𝐺𝑁 =
[𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠1 ), 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠2 ), 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠3 ), 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠4 )]T , and the function 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠𝑖 ), is defined such that:

1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖 > 0
𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠𝑖 ) = { 0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖 = 0 (7)
−1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖 < 0
Theorem:
In the context of the quadrotor system outlined in (1), the control inputs of 6, 4, and 3 facilitate
the finite-time convergence of the sliding surface defined by S(x, t) = 0. Consequently, both the
tracking error E and its derivative Ė will asymptotically approach zero.
Proof:
It is appropriate to identify the following Lyapunov function:

1
𝑉 = 𝑆𝑇𝑆 (8)
2
The time derivative of Lyapunov functions is specified by:

𝑉̇ = 𝑆 𝑇 𝑆̇ (9)
By substituting the derivative of the selected surface as shown in equation (5), we derive the
following result:

𝑉̇ = 𝑆 𝑇 (𝐸̈ + Λ𝐸̇ ) = 𝑆 𝑇 [𝜃̈ − 𝜃̈𝑑 + Λ𝐸̇ ] (10)

Substituting equation (1) into equation (10) gives:

𝑉̇ = 𝑆 𝑇 [𝑀−1 (𝜃)(𝜏 − 𝐵 (𝜃)𝜃̇𝑖 𝜃𝑗̇ − 𝐶(𝜃)𝜃̇𝑘2 − 𝐺(𝜃)) − 𝜃̈𝑑 + Λ𝐸̇ ] (11)

By substituting the control inputs (3) and (6) into equation (11), we find:

𝑉̇ = 𝑆 𝑇 [(−𝐾 𝑆𝐺𝑁 − 𝐷(𝑡))]

4
𝑉̇ = − ∑ 𝑠𝑖 (𝑘𝑖 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠𝑖 ) − 𝐷𝑖 (𝑡))
𝑖=1
4 (12)
≤ −∑ |𝑠𝑖 | (|𝑘𝑖 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑠𝑖 )| − |𝐷𝑖 (𝑡)|)
𝑖=1
4
≤ −∑ |𝑠𝑖 | (𝑘𝑖 − |𝐷𝑖 (𝑡)|)
𝑖=1

To ensure that V̇ is less than 0, the gain must be selected as k i >𝐷𝑖 . Once this condition is met,
the stability of the system is verified.

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 787
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Fig. 2. Control system block diagram

4. Simulation Results
The simulation outcomes are based on the actual parameters of the Quanser Robot QArm, as
shown in Fig. 3. The robot model in equations (1) and (2) is used, with 𝑀𝑖𝑗 , 𝐵𝑖𝑗 , and 𝐶𝑖𝑗 detailed in
[38]. The QArm parameters are listed in Table 2. The initial values of the joints are 𝑞1 = 𝑞2 = 𝑞3 =
𝑞4 = 0, corresponding to 𝑥 = 45𝑐𝑚, 𝑦 = 0 𝑐𝑚 and 𝑧 = 49 𝑐𝑚. To showcase the resilience of the
proposed control schemes, a time-varying disturbance is introduced to the controlled signal. The
external disturbances are assumed to be as follows:

𝐷𝑖 = 3 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜔𝑡) + 0.5 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜔𝑡) (13)

The control feedback linearization based on sliding mode controller described in section 3 is used.
The gain values are as follows:
Λ = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔[10,10,10,1000],
𝐾 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔[100,100,100,500]
The desired trajectory consists of two squares with sharp edges, as shown in Fig. 4. The graph
illustrates the performance of the trajectory tracking system. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 depict the tracking of
the three axes and the joint tracking, showcasing the controller's ability to provide precise tracking.
Additionally, the proposed controller is compared to a standard PID controller.

𝑑
𝜏 = 𝐾𝑝 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝐾𝐷 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝐾𝐼 ∫ 𝑒(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 (14)
𝑑𝑡
The errors in the axes for the proposed controller, which is based on feedback linearization
utilizing sliding mode, are presented in Fig. 7, along with the PID controllers. It is evident that the
proposed control reduces the error. Fig. 8 displays the control signals, showing continuous signals
that never reach saturation, indicating the capability to apply to a practical system to verify the
controller's quality and stability. The controller regulates the behavior of a system to achieve desired
performance. Control signals are smooth and uninterrupted over time, without abrupt jumps or
discontinuities which reduces stress on the system's actuators and improves overall performance and
indicates the controller operates within a safe range, avoiding potential issues like degraded
performance or system instability. System stability ensures the system does not oscillate
uncontrollably or deviate from the desired state.
The root mean square (RMSE) value of the errors in each case is shown in Table 3. The numbers
in the table show the advantage of FLSMC over the PID controller. The proposed combined system
provides good performance as shown in the figures and the table.
As it can be noticed in the simulation the FLSM controller over a PID controller has improved
Robustness to Nonlinearities, Reduced Overshoot and Oscillations, Improved Stability, ensured Faster

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
788 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Response, and Reduced Sensitivity to Tuning. The FLSM demonstrated superior robustness and
precision under varying conditions compared to the PID controller, effectively maintaining stability
and accuracy even in challenging scenarios.

Table 3. Root mean square of the errors

RMSE PID FLSM
x 0.3818 0.036
y 0.1377 0.03
z 0.03 0.002

Fig. 3. Quanser QArm [38]

Fig. 4. Trajectory tracking in3D

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 789
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Fig. 5. Trajectory tracking in xyz

Fig. 6. QArm joint tracking

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
790 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Fig. 7. Error in Feedback linearization and PID controllers

Fig. 8. Control signals

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 791
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

5. Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive approach to Feedback Linearization using a sliding mode
tracking controller. The methodology leverages prior knowledge of the dynamic model, enabling the
proposed controller to directly address the system's nonlinearity without the need for model
linearization. By mitigating the effects of highly coupled dynamics, the controller ensures robust and
precise tracking performance. The robustness characteristics are analyzed within the context of the
global closed-loop system. Stability is examined through Lyapunov analysis, and the dynamic model
is implemented in MATLAB/Simulink. The effectiveness of the proposed system is demonstrated
through empirical results and a comparative analysis with a traditional PID controller, showcasing
commendable performance and accuracy. Future research directions include comparing the proposed
system with feedback linearization approaches based on alternative control systems to identify the
most effective method. Future research can explore the following directions to enhance and extend
the findings of this study such as Real-World Experimental Validation, Extension to Multi-Input
Multi-Output (MIMO) Systems, Integration with Machine Learning Techniques, and Energy
Efficiency and Computational Optimization.

Author Contribution: All authors contributed equally to the main contributor to this paper. All authors read
and approved the final paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1] W. K. A. Alqaisi, “Nonlinear control and perturbation compensation in UAV quadrotor,” Thèse de
doctorat électronique, pp. 167-178, 2019, https://espace.etsmtl.ca/id/eprint/2372.
[2] H. Z. Ting, Han, M. H. M. Zaman, M. F. Ibrahim, and A. M Moubark, “Kinematic Analysis for Trajectory
Planning of Open-Source 4-DoF Robot Arm,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications (IJACSA), vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 768-775, 2021,
https://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120690.
[3] Y. Kali, J. Rodas, M. Saad, R. Gregor, W. Alqaisi, and K. Benjelloun, “Robust Finite-time Position and
Attitude Tracking of a Quadrotor UAV using Super-Twisting Control Algorithm with Linear Correction
Terms,” Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and
Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 221–228, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5220/0007831202210228.
[4] M. Plooij, W. Wolfslag, and M. Wisse, “Robust feedforward control of robotic arms with friction model
uncertainty,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 70, pp. 83–91, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.03.008.
[5] Q. Guo, T. Yu, and D. Jiang, “Robust H∞ positional control of 2-DOF robotic arm driven by electro-
hydraulic servo system,” ISA Transactions, vol. 59, pp. 55–64, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2015.09.014.
[6] Z. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Zhang, and C. P. Chen, “Coordinated fuzzy control of robotic arms with actuator
nonlinearities and motion constraints,” Information Sciences, vol. 296, pp. 1–13, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.10.061.
[7] C. -C. Chen and Y. -T. Chen, "Feedback Linearized Optimal Control Design for Quadrotor With Multi-
Performances," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 26674-26695,
2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057378.
[8] F. R. Al-Ani, O. F. Lutfy, and H. Al-Khazraji, “Optimal Synergetic and Feedback Linearization
Controllers Design for Magnetic Levitation Systems: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Robotics and
Control (JRC), vol. 6, no. 1, no. 1, pp. 22-30, 2024, https://doi.org/10.18196/jrc.v6i1.24452.

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
792 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

[9] A. Chemori, R. Kouki, and F. Bouani, “A new fast nonlinear model predictive control of parallel
manipulators: Design and experiments,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 130, p. 105367, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2022.105367.
[10] A. Duka, “Neural network based inverse kinematics solution for trajectory tracking of a robotic arm,”
Procedia Technology, vol. 12, pp. 20–27, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.451.
[11] W. Alqaisi and C. Z. El-Bayeh, “Backstepping Control Based on Neural Network Estimation,” Innovation
and Technological Advances for Sustainability, 2024, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-
edit/10.1201/9781003496724-24/backstepping-control-based-neural-network-estimation-walid-alqaisi-
claude-ziad-el-bayeh.
[12] X. Yang et al., "Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning With Universal Policies for Multistep Robotic
Manipulation," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 4727-
4741, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3059912.
[13] T. Uzunovic, E. A. Baran, E. Golubovic, and A. Sabanovic, “A novel hybrid contouring control method
for 3-DOF robotic manipulators,” Mechatronics, vol. 40, pp. 178–193, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2016.10.001.
[14] D. Verscheure, B. Demeulenaere, J. Swevers, J. De Schutter, and M. Diehl, “Practical time-optimal
trajectory planning for robots: a convex optimization approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, pp. 1-10, 2008, https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/211749/1/07-208.pdf.
[15] C. -Y. Kai and A. -C. Huang, "Adaptive LQ control of robot manipulators," 2014 9th IEEE Conference
on Industrial Electronics and Applications, pp. 770-774, 2014,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEA.2014.6931266.
[16] K. Chen, “Robust optimal adaptive sliding mode control with the disturbance observer for a manipulator
robot system,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1701–1715,
2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-017-0710-1.
[17] A. Perrusquía, “Robust state/output feedback linearization of direct drive robot manipulators: A
controllability and observability analysis,” European Journal of Control, vol. 64, p. 100612, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2021.12.007.
[18] J. Wilson, M. Charest, and R. Dubay, “Non-linear model predictive control schemes with application on
a 2 link vertical robot manipulator,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 41, pp. 23–
30, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2016.02.003.
[19] W. Alqaisi and C. Z. El-Bayeh, "Adaptive Control Based on Radial Base Function Neural Network
Approximation for Quadrotor," 2022 17th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference (SOSE),
pp. 214-219, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/SOSE55472.2022.9812660.
[20] T. Rybus, K. Seweryn, and J. Z. Sasiadek, “Control system for free-floating space manipulator based on
nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC),” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 85, pp. 491–
509, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-016-0396-2.
[21] W. Alqaisi, B. Brahmi, J. Ghommam, M. Saad, and V. Nerguizian, “Vision-based leader-follower
approach for uncertain quadrotor dynamics using feedback linearisation sliding mode control,”
International Journal of Modelling, Identification and Control, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 9-19, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIC.2019.103980.
[22] W. Alqaisi, B. Brahmi, J. Ghommam, M. Saad and V. Nerguizian, "Multivariable Super-Twisting Control
in a Vision-based Quadrotor Utilized in Agricultural Application," 2018 IEEE International Conference
on Computational Intelligence and Virtual Environments for Measurement Systems and Applications
(CIVEMSA), pp. 1-6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1109/CIVEMSA.2018.8439964.
[23] W. Alqaisi, Y. Kali and W. Lucia, "Finite-Time Flight Control of Uncertain Quadrotor UAV based on
Modified Non-Singular Fast Terminal Super-Twisting Control," 2020 IEEE Conference on Control
Technology and Applications (CCTA), pp. 37-42, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCTA41146.2020.9206250.
[24] W. Alqaisi, B. Brahmi, J. Ghommam, M. Saad and V. Nerguizian, "Sliding Mode Controller and
Hierarchical Perturbation Compensator in a UAV Quadrotor," 2018 IEEE International Conference on

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 793
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2025, pp. 781-793

Computational Intelligence and Virtual Environments for Measurement Systems and Applications
(CIVEMSA), pp. 1-6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1109/CIVEMSA.2018.8440003.
[25] A. Perrusquía, “Robust state/output feedback linearization of direct drive robot manipulators: A
controllability and observability analysis,” European Journal of Control, vol. 64, p. 100612, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2021.12.007.
[26] A. Elmogy and W. Elawady, “An adaptive continuous sliding mode feedback linearization task space
control for robot manipulators,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 102284, 2024,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102284.
[27] Y. Kali, M. Saad, and K. Benjelloun, “Nonsingular fast terminal second-order sliding mode for robotic
manipulators based on feedback linearization,” International Journal of Dynamics and Control, vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 296–305, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-021-00810-7.
[28] W. Alqaisi, Y. Kali and C. Z. El-Bayeh, "Modified Fast Terminal Super-Twisting Control for Uncertain
Robot Manipulators," 2021 18th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD),
pp. 1142-1147, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/SSD52085.2021.9429461.
[29] W. Alqaisi, B. Brahmi, J. Ghommam, M. Saad, and V. Nerguizian, “Hierarchical perturbation
compensation system with ERL sliding mode controller in a quadrotor,” IFAC Journal of Systems and
Control, vol. 26, p. 100232, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacsc.2023.100232.
[30] X. Yu, Y. Feng and Z. Man, "Terminal Sliding Mode Control – An Overview," IEEE Open Journal of
the Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 2, pp. 36-52, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/OJIES.2020.3040412.
[31] S. Ding, J. H. Park, and C. Chen, “Second-order sliding mode controller design with output constraint,”
Automatica, vol. 112, p. 108704, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2019.108704.
[32] J. Baek, M. Jin and S. Han, "A New Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control Scheme for Application to Robot
Manipulators," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3628-3637, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2522386.
[33] A. Lozynskyy, L. Kasha, S. Pakizh, R. Sadovskyi, “Synthesis of PI- and PID-Regulators in Control
Systems Derived by the Feedback Linearization Method,” Energy Engineering and Control Systems, vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 120–130, 2024, https://doi.org/10.23939/jeecs2024.02.120.
[34] P. P. Bhangale, S. K. Saha, and V. P. Agrawal, “A dynamic model based robot arm selection criterion,”
Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 12, pp. 95-115, 2004,
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MUBO.0000044363.57485.39.
[35] A. A. Mohammed and M. Sunar, "Kinematics modeling of a 4-DOF robotic arm," 2015 International
Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics, pp. 87-91, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAR.2015.7166008.
[36] S. A. Chander, A. Mukherjee, V. D. Shivling, A. Singla, “Enhanced Euler–Lagrange Formulation for
Analyzing Human Gait With Moving Base Reference,” Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 17,
no. 1, p. 011006, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4065520.
[37] G. D’Antuono, K. Y. Pettersen, L. R. Buonocore, J. T. Gravdahl, and M. D. Castro, “Dynamic model of
a tendon-actuated snake robot using the Newton-Euler formulation,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2,
pp. 11639–11644, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.502.
[38] C. -H. Yu, "Experimental Implementation of Quantum Algorithm for Association Rules Mining," IEEE
Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 676-684, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JETCAS.2022.3201097.
[39] Q. -Y. Fan, D. Wang and B. Xu, "H∞ Codesign for Uncertain Nonlinear Control Systems Based on Policy
Iteration Method," IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 10101-10110, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3065995.
[40] R. M. Berger and H. A. ElMaraghy, “Feedback linearization control of flexible joint robots,” Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 239–246, 1992, https://doi.org/10.1016/0736-
5845(92)90028-5.

Walid Kh. Alqaisi (Four DOF Robot Manipulator Control Using Feedback Linearization Based on Sliding Mode
Control)