Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Stability is essential for teleoperation and a prerequisite for performance. This paper analyzes the the stability/performance trade-off of a teleoperator where the slave device has a built-in passive intrinsic stiffness. Stability is quantified as time delay robustness and performance is expressed using teleoperator damping and teleoperator stiffness, the boundaries of the Colgate Z-width

Two classic control schemes, position error and Lawrence 4-channel, are used along with a novel 5-channel scheme where the slave stiffness deflection is measured, and compensated for, to improve the performance.

The teleoperator system was analyzed theoretically using a linear model and the findings were experimentally validated on a one degree of freedom teleoperation setup.

It was found that:

• A lower slave stiffness improves stability for all three teleoperator architectures.

• The stability boundary of the three controllers is similar.

• The performance of the controllers increases from: (poor) position error, 4-Channel to (excellent) 5-channel.

• A classical linear analysis method can accurately predict the stability characteristics of the teleoperator system.

Therefore it can be concluded that a compliant slave device offers a stability advantage for a range of teleoperation situations and that the loss of performance can be partly compensated.

Keywords

Teleoperation haptics perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aliaga, I. , Rubio, A. , and Sanchez, E. (2004). Experimental quantitative comparison of different control architectures for master-slave teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(1): 2-11.

Anderson, R. J. and Spong, M. W. (1989). Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 34(4): 494-501.

Burdea, G. C. (1996). Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality, 1st edn. John Wiley Sons.

Christiansson, G. A. V. (2004). Measuring asymmetric haptic teleoperation device properties. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, The Hague, Netherlands, October, pp.2454-2458.

Christiansson, G. A. V. , van der Linde, R. Q. , and Tang, Y. (2006) Size discrimination in haptic teleoperation-influence of teleoperator stiffness. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Lake Buena, Florida, pp.3263-3267.

Colgate, J. E. and Brown, J. M. (1994). Factors affecting the Z-width of a haptic display. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, Ca, pp.3205-3210.

Colgate, J. E. and Hogan, N. (1989). An analysis of contact instability in terms of passive physical equivalents. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, Ca, pp.404-409.

de Vlugt, E. , Schouten, A. C. , and Helm, F. C. T. (2002). Adaptation of reflexive feedback during arm posture to different environments. Journal of Biological Cybernetics, 78: 10-26.

Van de Vegte, J. (1990). Feedback control systems, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

10.

Fritz, E. C. , Christiansson, G. A. V. , and Van der Linde, R. Q. (2004). Haptic gripper with adjustable inherent passive properties. Proceedings of Euro-Haptics Conference, Munich,Germany.

11.

Hannaford, B. (1989a). A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 5(4): 426-434.

12.

Hannaford, B. (1989b). Stability and performance tradeoffs in bilateral telemanipulation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ, pp.1764-1767.

13.

Hashtrudi-Zaad, K. and Salcudean, S. E. (2001). Analysis of control architectures for teleoperation systems with impedance/admittance master and slave manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 20(6): 419-445.

14.

Hashtrudi-Zaad, K. and Salcudean, S. E. (2002). Transparency in time-delayed systems and the effect of local force feedback for transparent teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 18(1): 108-114.

15.

Hogan, N. (1988). On the stability of manipulators performing contact tasks. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 4(6): 677-686.

16.

Howe, R. D. (1992). A force-reflecting teleoperated hand system for the study of tactile sensing in precision manipulation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nice, France, pp.1321-1326.

17.

Jung, S. , Hsiz, T. C. , and Bonitz, R. G. (2004). Force tracking impedance control of robot manipulators under unknown environment. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(3): 474-483.

18.

Karlsson, J. (2004). World Robotics 2004. United Nations Publications, Geneva.

19.

Kuchenbecker, K. J. , Fiene, J. , and Niemeyer, G. (2006). Improving contact realism through event-based haptic feedback. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(2): 219-230.

20.

Lawrence, D. A. (1993). Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 9(5):

21.

Qian, H. (1993). Stable Robot Force Control in Case of Hard Contact. Thesis/dissertation, KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering.

22.

Raju, G. J. , Verghese, G. C. , and Sheridan, T. B. (1989). Design issues in 2-port network models of bilateral remote manipulation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ, 1316-1321.

23.

Whitney, D. E. (1985). Historical perspective and state of the art in robot force control. IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.262-228.

The Low-Stiffness Teleoperator Slave — a Trade-off between Stability and Performance

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References