Position controllers are used for free motion, whereas force controllers are used for constrained motion of robotic manipulators. The hybrid controller switches between position and force control modes depending on whether the manipulator is in contact with the environment. To improve production efficiency, the velocity of contact between the manipulator and environment is not set to zero. However, the high impact force due to the nonzero contact velocity might damage the environment surface or manipulators. In this article, we propose a virtual semi-active damping learning method to suppress force overshoot without decreasing the contact velocity. Virtual semi-active damping is adjusted according to the manipulator position in force control. The limited-memory BFGS method is used to obtain the ideal impedance model for the unknown environment. By minimizing the defined cost function, we get the desired interaction performance. The correctness and effectiveness of the proposed method are verified by conducting simulations and experiments.
AbdiFShakeriF (2019) A globally convergent BFGS method for pseudo-monotone variational inequality problems. Optimization Methods and Software34(1): 25–36.
2.
ArefiniaETalebiHADoustmohammadiA (2020) A robust adaptive model reference impedance control of a robotic manipulator with actuator saturation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems50(2): 409–420.
3.
BerahasASTakM (2020) A robust multi-batch l-bfgs method for machine learning. Optimization Methods and Software35(1): 191–219.
4.
BranickyMS (1998) Multiple Lyapunov functions and other analysis tools for switched and hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control43(4): 475–482.
5.
BuchliJStulpFTheodorouE, et al. (2011) Learning variable impedance control. The International Journal of Robotics Research30(7): 820–833.
6.
CarloniRSanfeliceRGTeelAR, et al. (2007) A hybrid control strategy for robust contact detection and force regulation. In: 2007 American control conference, NY, USA, 9–13 July 2007, pp. 1461–1466. IEEE.
7.
DiolaitiNMelchiorriCStramigioliS (2005) Contact impedance estimation for robotic systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics21(5): 925–935.
8.
FernandoHMarshallJALarssonJ, et al. (2019) Iterative learning-based admittance control for autonomous excavation. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems96(3): 493–500.
9.
HeWDongY (2017) Adaptive fuzzy neural network control for a constrained robot using impedance learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems29(4): 1174–1186.
10.
HeckDSacconAVan de WouwN, et al. (2016) Guaranteeing stable tracking of hybrid position-force trajectories for a robot manipulator interacting with a stiff environment. Automatica63: 235–247.
11.
LaiCY (2014) Improving the transient performance in robotics force control using nonlinear damping. In: IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM), Besancon, France, 8–11 July 2014, pp. 892–897. New york: IEEE.
12.
LaiCYLiYPVuongND, et al. (2012) Nonlinear damping for improved transient performance in robotics force control. In: 2012 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM), Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 11–14 July 2012, pp. 314–319. New york: IEEE.
13.
LiZHuangBAjoudaniA, et al. (2018) Asymmetric bimanual control of dual-arm exoskeletons for human-cooperative manipulations. IEEE Transactions on Robotics34(1): 264–271.
14.
LiZLiuJHuangZ, et al. (2017) Adaptive impedance control of human-robot cooperation using reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics64(10): 8013–8022.
15.
LiaoA (1997) Modifying the BFGS method. Operations Research Letters20(4): 171–177.
16.
LiuDCNocedalJ (1989) On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming45(1): 503–528.
17.
LuoJSolowjowEWenC, et al. (2019) Reinforcement learning on variable impedance controller for high-precision robotic assembly. In: International conference on robotics and automation(ICRA). Montreal, QC, 20–24 May 2019, pp. 3080–3087. New york: IEEE.
18.
MarkusEDAgeeJTJimohAA (2016) Flat control of industrial robotic manipulators. Robotics and Autonomous Systems87: 226–236.
19.
MatteoLTsagarakisNGCaldwellDG (2010) A variable physical damping actuator (VPDA) for compliant robotic joints. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Anchorage, Alaska, 3–7 May 2010, pp. 1668–1674. New york: IEEE.
20.
MohammadAEKHongJWangD (2018) Design of a force-controlled end-effector with low-inertia effect for robotic polishing using macro-mini robot approach. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing49: 54–65.
21.
NeculaiA (2018) An adaptive scaled BFGS method for unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algorithms77(2): 413–432.
22.
NozakiTShimizuSMurakamiT, et al. (2018) Impedance field expression of bilateral control for reducing data traffic in haptic transmission. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics66(2): 1142–1150.
23.
PetterssonSLennartsonB (1996) Stability and robustness for hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of 35th IEEE conference on decision and control. Kobe, Japan, 13 December 1996, pp. 1202–1207. New york: IEEE.
24.
PhilippMNishiharaRJordanM (2016) A linearly-convergent stochastic L-BFGS algorithm. In: 2016 international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, Cadiz, Spain, 9–11 May 2016, pp. 249–259. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
25.
RaghuBMudigereDNocedalJ, et al. (2018) A progressive batching L-BFGS method for machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 35th international conference on machine learning, Stockholm, Sweden, 10–15 July 2018. Chicago: ML.
26.
SharifiMSalariehHBehzadipourS, et al. (2018) Impedance control of non-linear multi-DOF teleoperation systems with time delay: absolute stability. IET Control Theory & Applications12(12): 1722–1729.
27.
StegallPZanottoDAgrawalSK (2017) Variable damping force tunnel for gait training using ALEX III. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters2(3): 1495–1501.
28.
ZoeDIliadisG (2005) Contact stability analysis of a one degree-of-freedom robot using hybrid system stability theory. Robotica23(5): 607–614.
