The accuracy of fracture reduction robot is critical factor for clinical application. In this study, a neural network adaptive admittance control (NNAAC) system is proposed to improve the position/force tracking accuracy of the robot under large variable reduction forces and uncertain robot dynamic models. The NNAAC consists of an inner loop and an outer loop. The inner loop combines inverse dynamics control (IDC) and radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) to compensate for inaccuracies in the dynamic model, and an admittance parameter adaptive controller based on the RBFNN in the outer loop improves force tracking accuracy and stability. The performance of the NNAAC is evaluated by fracture model reduction experiments, comparing it with the inverse dynamics control and constant admittance control. The experimental results show that the NNAAC achieves better control effectiveness and high accuracy with a maximum reduction force of 190 N. Specifically, the proposed controller exhibits a maximum position error of less than 1 mm and a maximum orientation error of less than 0.5°.
DuanJGanYChenM, et al. (2018) Adaptive variable impedance control for dynamic contact force tracking in uncertain environment. Robotics and Autonomous Systems102: 54–65.
2.
FicucielloFVillaniLSicilianoB (2015) Variable impedance control of redundant manipulators for intuitive human–robot physical interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics31(4): 850–863.
3.
GeSHangCLeeT, et al. (2001) Stable adaptive neural network control design. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4757-6577-9.
4.
GrahamAEXieSQAwKC, et al. (2008) Bone-muscle interaction of the fractured femur. Journal of Orthopaedic Research: Official Publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society26(8): 1159–1165.
5.
HanLXuWKangP, et al. (2021) Unified neural adaptive control for multiple human–robot–environment interactions. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics17(2): 1166–1175.
6.
HoganN (1984) Impedance control: An approach to manipulation. In: 1984 American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, July 1984, pp. 304–313. IEEE. DOI:10.23919/ACC.1984.4788393.
7.
JamwalPKHussainSGhayeshMH (2021) Intrinsically compliant parallel robot for fractured femur reduction: Mechanism optimization and control. Robotics and Autonomous Systems141: 103787.
8.
JungSHsiaTCBonitzRG (2004) Force tracking impedance control of robot manipulators under unknown environment. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology12(3): 474–483.
9.
KangGOhHSSeoJK, et al. (2019) Variable admittance control of robot manipulators based on human intention. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics24(3): 1023–1032.
10.
LandiCTFerragutiFSabattiniL, et al. (2017) Admittance control parameter adaptation for physical human-robot interaction. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, Singapore, May 2017, pp. 2911–2916. IEEE. DOI:10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989338.
11.
LebretGLiuKLewisFL (1993) Dynamic analysis and control of a Stewart platform manipulator. Journal of Robotic Systems10(5): 629–655.
12.
LiZHuangHSongX, et al. (2021) A fuzzy adaptive admittance controller for force tracking in an uncertain contact environment. Iet Control Theory and Applications15(17): 2158–2170.
13.
NavvabiHMarkaziAHD (2019) Hybrid position/force control of Stewart manipulator using Extended Adaptive Fuzzy Sliding Mode Controller (E-AFSMC). ISA Transactions88: 280–295.
14.
OttCMukherjeeRNakamuraY (2010) Unified impedance and admittance control. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, AK, May 2010, pp. 554–561. IEEE. DOI:10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509861.
15.
ParkJSandbergIW (1991) Universal approximation using radial-basis-function networks. Neural Computation3(2): 246–257.
16.
PengGChenCLPYangC (2022) Neural networks enhanced optimal admittance control of robot-environment interaction using reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems33(9): 4551–4561.
RanatungaILewisFLPopaDO, et al. (2017) Adaptive admittance control for human–robot interaction using model reference design and adaptive inverse filtering. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology25(1): 278–285.
19.
SicilianoBKhatibO (2016) Robotics and the handbook. In: SicilianoBKhatibO (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer Handbooks. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.172–173. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_1.
20.
WuQChenBWuH (2019) Adaptive admittance control of an upper extremity rehabilitation robot with neural-network-based disturbance observer. IEEE ACCESS7: 123807–123819.
21.
XuHLeiJHuL, et al. (2022) Constraint of musculoskeletal tissue and path planning of robot-assisted fracture reduction with collision avoidance. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery18(2): e2361.
22.
XuQSunX (2020) Adaptive impedance control of robots with reference trajectory learning. IEEE ACCESS8: 104967–104976.
23.
YangCPengGLiY, et al. (2019) Neural networks enhanced adaptive admittance control of optimized robot–environment interaction. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics49(7): 2568–2579.
24.
ZhangXSunTDengD (2020) Neural approximation-based adaptive variable impedance control of robots. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control42(13): 2589–2598.
25.
ZhaoJ-XLiCRenH, et al. (2020) Evolution and current applications of robot-assisted fracture reduction: A comprehensive review. Annals of Biomedical Engineering48(1): 203–224.
26.
ZhengGLeiJHuL, et al. (2021) Fuzzy adaptive sliding mode impedance control of fracture reduction robot. IEEE Access9: 113653–113665.
27.
ZhengGLeiJHuL, et al. (2022) Adaptive variable impedance position/force tracking control of fracture reduction robot. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 19(2): e2469.
