Previous studies on the stability analysis of haptic devices have predominantly focused on single-DOF devices, thereby limiting attention to multi-DOF devices, particularly those employing multi-rate sampling schemes. In this paper, we introduce a formulation for the coupled dynamics between the haptic device and the virtual environment for a multi-DOF haptic device controlled using a dual-rate sampling scheme. Subsequently, we analyze its stability through the application of a dynamic decoupling strategy within an exact discrete-time state-space framework while the device is engaged in rendering a virtual wall along one of its operational space coordinates. Furthermore, we explore how the combined influence of the dual-rate sampling approach, time delay, and the mechanical design affects the stability boundaries of the multi-DOF haptic device at a fixed workspace location as well as within the entire usable workspace. Additionally, we utilize a model-order reduction (MOR) framework to simplify the determination of the device’s stability limits, irrespective of the specific combinations of time delay and sampling rates employed.
PyunKRRogersJAKoSH. Materials and devices for immersive virtual reality. Nat Rev Mater2022; 7(11): 841–843.
2.
FengKLeiMWangX, et al. A flexible bidirectional interface with integrated multimodal sensing and haptic feedback for closed-loop human–machine interaction. Adv Intell Syst2023; 5: 1–13.
3.
AbiriAPensaJTaoA, et al. Multi-modal haptic feedback for grip force reduction in robotic surgery. Sci Rep2019; 9(1): 5016–5110.
4.
FletcherMDCunninghamROMillsSR. Electro-haptic enhancement of spatial hearing in cochlear implant users. Sci Rep2020; 10(1): 1621.
5.
ZiatMJhunjhunwalaRClepperG, et al. Walking on paintings: assessment of passive haptic feedback to enhance the immersive experience. Front Virtual Real2022; 3: 1–12.
6.
BeiterBHerronCLeonessaA. Whole body control for haptic interaction with VR. In: 2022 American control conference (ACC), 2022, pp.653–658. New York, NY: IEEE.
7.
ZhakypovZOkamuraA. Fingerprint: a 3-d printed soft monolithic 4-degree-of-freedom fingertip haptic device with embedded actuation. In: 2022 IEEE 5th international conference on soft robotics (RoboSoft), 2022, pp.938–944. New York, NY: IEEE.
8.
CulbertsonHSchorrSBOkamuraAM. Haptics: the present and future of artificial touch sensation. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst2018; 1: 385–409.
9.
ColgateJBrownJ. Factors affecting the z-width of a haptic display. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1994, pp.3205–3210. New York, NY: IEEE.
10.
Shayan-AminSKovacsLKovecsesJ. The role of mechanical properties on the behaviour and performance of multi-dof haptic devices. In: 2013 World haptics conference (WHC), pp.725–730. New York, NY: IEEE.
11.
AhmadAAnderssonKSellgrenU, et al. A stiffness modeling methodology for simulation-driven design of haptic devices. Eng Comput2014; 30: 125–141.
12.
KoehlerMBiezeTMKruszewskiA, et al. Modeling and control of a 5-dof parallel continuum haptic device. IEEE Trans Robot2023; 39: 3636–3654.
13.
WilliamsSRSuchoskiJMChuaZ, et al. A 4-degree-offreedom parallel origami haptic device for normal, shear, and torsion feedback. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2022; 7(2): 3310–3317.
14.
KoulMRabinowitzDSahaS, et al. Synthesis and design of a 2-dof haptic device for simulating epidural injection. In: Proceedings of the 13th world congress in mechanism and machine science, Guanajuato, Mexico, 2011, pp.1–7.
15.
KoehlerMOkamuraAMDuriezC. Stiffness control of deformable robots using finite element modeling. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2019; 4(2): 469–476.
16.
YoonJRyuJ. Design, fabrication, and evaluation of a new haptic device using a parallel mechanism. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2001; 6(3): 221–233.
17.
DiolaitiNNiemeyerGBarbagliF, et al. Stability of haptic rendering: discretization, quantization, time delay, and coulomb effects. IEEE Trans Robot2006; 22(2): 256–268.
18.
GillespieRCutkoskyM. Stable user-specific haptic rendering of the virtual wall. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exhibition, vol. 58, 1996, pp.397–406.
19.
AbbottJJOkamuraAM. Effects of position quantization and sampling rate on virtual-wall passivity. IEEE Trans Robot2005; 21(5): 952–964.
20.
GilJJSánchezEHulinT, et al. Stability boundary for haptic rendering: influence of damping and delay. J Comput Inf Sci Eng2009; 9(1): 011005.
21.
ColgateJESchenkelGG. Passivity of a class of sampled-data systems: application to haptic interfaces. J Robot Syst1997; 14(1): 37–47.
22.
MehlingJColgateJPeshkinM. Increasing the impedance range of a haptic display by adding electrical damping. In: Eurohaptics conference, 2005 and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, 2005. World haptics 2005. First joint, 2005, pp.257–262. New York, NY: IEEE.
23.
MashayekhiABehbahaniSFicucielloF, et al. Analytical stability criterion in haptic rendering: the role of damping. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2018; 23(2): 596–603.
24.
SrikanthMVasudevanHMuniyandiM. DC motor damping: a strategy to increase passive stiffness of haptic devices. In: International conference on human haptic sensing and touch enabled computer applications, 2008, pp.53–62. Springer.
25.
LeeKLeeD. Multirate control of haptic interface for stability and high fidelity. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol. 3, 2004, pp.2542–2547. New York, NY: IEEE.
26.
KoulMManivannanMSahaSK. Effect of dual-rate sampling on the stability of a haptic interface. J Intell Robot Syst2018; 91: 479–491.
27.
KoulM. Dynamics of closed-loop multibody systems and their application to haptic interfaces. PhD Thesis, IIT Delhi, 2015.
28.
AdamsRJHannafordB. Stable haptic interaction with virtual environments. IEEE Trans Robot Autom1999; 15(3): 465–474.
29.
ChawdaVCelikOO’MalleyMK. A method for selecting velocity filter cut-off frequency for maximizing impedance width performance in haptic interfaces. J Dyn Syst Meas Control2015; 137(2): 024503.
30.
MashayekhiABehbahaniSFicucielloF, et al. Delay-dependent stability analysis in haptic rendering. J Intell Robot Syst2020; 97: 33–45.
31.
GilJJAvelloARubioA, et al. Stability analysis of a 1 dof haptic interface using the Routh–Hurwitz criterion. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2004; 12(4): 583–588.
32.
MashayekhiABehbahaniSFicucielloF, et al. Influence of human operator on stability of haptic rendering: a closed-form equation. Int J Intell Robot Appl2020; 4: 403–415.
33.
DangQVVermeirenLDequidtA, et al. Experimental study on the stability of an impedance-type force-feedback architecture based on an augmented-state observer for a haptic system under time delay using a lmi approach. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering2016; 230(1): 58–71.
34.
LiuYMengFGuanB, et al. Robust stability analysis based on lmi for haptic interface systems with uncertain delay. Complexity2018; 2018: 1–10.
35.
ColonneseNOkamuraAM. M-width: stability, noise characterization, and accuracy of rendering virtual mass. Int J Rob Res2015; 34(6): 781–798.
36.
TokatliOPatogluV. Stability of haptic systems with fractional order controllers. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), 2015, pp.1172–1177.New York, NY: IEEE.
37.
NombergRNiskyI. Human-in-the-loop stability analysis of haptic rendering with time delay by tracking the roots of the characteristic quasi-polynomial: the effect of arm impedance. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2021; 6(4): 7564–7571.
38.
NombergRNiskyI. Human-in-the-loop stability analysis of haptic rendering with time delay – the effect of delayed feedback control in the operator model. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2023; 8: 6379–6386.
39.
KimSLeeDY. Control of haptic systems based on inputto-state stability. IEEE Access2022; 10: 27242–27254.
40.
OliverSPeclyLHashtrudi-ZaadK. Uncoupled stability dynamic range for hunt-crossley modeled virtual environments. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2023; 8: 5751–5758.
41.
ChenYTHsiuHChenRJ, et al. Stability of virtual reality haptic feedback incorporating fuzzy-passivity control. Meas Control2023; 56(3–4): 493–506.
42.
MashayekhiAShakeriMBehbahaniS, et al. Describing function of the gaussian friction model and its effect on stability of a haptic device. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng2024; 46(3): 1–11.
43.
PeclyLHashtrudi-ZaadK. Analog position estimation for enhanced stability and fidelity of haptic systems. IEEE Trans Haptics2024.
44.
DincHTHulinTOttC, et al. Relaxing conservatism for enhanced impedance range and transparency in haptic interaction. IEEE Trans Haptics2024; 17: 100–107.
45.
BarbagliFPrattichizzoDSalisburyK. A multirate approach to haptic interaction with deformable objects single and multipoint contacts. Int J Rob Res2005; 24(9): 703–715.
46.
DaiXZhangYCaoY, et al. Stable multirate control algorithm for haptic dental training system. In: International conference on intelligent robotics and applications, 2008, pp.27–35. Springer.
47.
FotoohiMSirouspourSCapsonD. Stability and performance analysis of centralized and distributed multi-rate control architectures for multi-user haptic interaction. Int J Rob Res2007; 26(9): 977–994.
48.
GaninySKoulMHAhmadB. Time-delayed dual-rate haptic rendering: stability analysis and reduced order modeling. Int J Intell Robot Appl2021; 5(4): 510–533.
49.
GaninySKoulMHAhmadB. Identification of the most conservative stability bounds for a class of multi-rate haptics controllers. Int J Model Identification Control2022; 41(4): 357–374.
50.
GaninySKoulMAhmadB. On the determination of stability bounds of time-delayed dual-rate haptics controllers via model order reduction. In: Advances in robotics-5th international conference of the robotics society, 2021, pp. 1–7.
51.
Shayan AminSKövecsesJ. Dynamics of multibody haptic systems. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, vol. 54815, 2011, pp.383–391.
52.
Shayan-AminSKovácsLKövecsesJ. Dynamic behaviour and stability analysis of multibody haptic systems. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, vol. 45059, pp.197–203. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
53.
MashayekhiAKaramiASicilianoB. A new approach for simplifying multi-degree of freedom haptic device dynamics model. J Intell Robot Syst2023; 108(1): 4.
54.
ChawdaVCelikOO’MalleyM. Application of levant’s differentiator for velocity estimation and increased z-width in haptic interfaces. In: World haptics conference (WHC), 2011, pp.403–408. New York, NY: IEEE.
55.
LackiMDeBoonBRossaC. Impact of kinematic structure on the force displayability of planar passive haptic devices. IEEE Trans Haptics2020; 13(1): 219–225.
56.
ColonneseNOkamuraA. Propagation of joint space quantization error to operational space coordinates and their derivatives. In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp.2054–2061. New York, NY: IEEE.
57.
LynchKMParkFC. Modern robotics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
58.
SansanayuthTNilkhamhangITungpimolratK. Teleoperation with inverse dynamics control for phantom omni haptic device. In: 2012 Proceedings of SICE annual conference (SICE), pp.2121–2126. New York, NY: IEEE.
59.
Shayan-AminS. Modelling and analysis of haptic mechanical systems. PhD Thesis, McGill University, 2014.
60.
HirschkornMKövecsesJ. The role of the mass matrix in the analysis of mechanical systems. Multibody Syst Dyn2013; 30(4): 397–412.
61.
ShimogaK. Finger force and touch feedback issues in dexterous telemanipulation. In: Fourth annual conference on intelligent robotic systems for space exploration, 1992, pp.159–160. IEEE Computer Society.
62.
HulinTPreuscheCHirzingerG. Stability boundary for haptic rendering: Influence of human operator. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS 2008, 2008, pp.3483–3488. New York, NY: IEEE.
63.
FranklinGFPowellJDWorkmanML, et al. Digital control of dynamic systems. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-wesley, 1998. Vol. 3.
64.
GoslineACampionGHaywardV. On the use of eddy current brakes as tunable, fast turn-on viscous dampers for haptic rendering. In: Proceedings of eurohaptics, vol. 3, 2006, p.229.
65.
GhoshSSenroyN. Balanced truncation based reduced order modeling of wind farm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst2013; 53: 649–655.
66.
PerneboLSilvermanL. Model reduction via balanced state space representations. IEEE Trans Automat Contr1982; 27(2): 382–387.
67.
MooreB. Principal component analysis in linear systems: controllability, observability, and model reduction. IEEE Trans Automat Contr1981; 26(1): 17–32.
68.
LaubAHeathMPaigeC, et al. Computation of system balancing transformations and other applications of simultaneous diagonalization algorithms. IEEE Trans Automat Contr1987; 32(2): 115–122.
69.
GilJJCiáurrizPDíazI. Controlling two haptically coupled devices: system modeling and stability analysis. Mechatronics2018; 49: 224–234.
