Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4, AUGUST 1993
374
I.
INTRODUCTION
HUMAN performing a manual task will typically associate a feel with the task. For instance, the feel of
carving wood is very different when performed with a sharp
knife than with a dull one. Feel relates to the manner in which
the environment responds to the motions and forces generated
by the human. As such, feel can be described by a causal
dynamic operator that relates a response (output) variable
to a stimulus (input) variable. For instance, if the output
is taken to be force and the input velocity, the appropriate
operator is an impedance [24]. Different selections of input and
output variables may lead to admittance, hybrid, scattering, or
other descriptions of task feel. In this paper, unless otherwise
specified, the term impedance will refer generally to an
operator that embodies feel.
When a bilateral manipulator is inserted between a human
and environment, it will alter the feel of the task. In most
traditional applications of bilateral manipulation, a design goal
is to achieve transparency; i.e., minimize the extent to which
the bilateral manipulator alters the feel of the task. But it is also
possible to make intentional use of a bilateral manipulator as
a means of altering feel. This concept is particularly valuable
if the characteristic dimensions (e.g., force, length, time) of
Manuscript received November 13, 1991; revised March 4, 1993. This work
was supported in part by the Engineering Foundation, Grant RI-A-90-4 and
in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant MSS-9022513.
The author is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestem University, 2145 Sheridan Road,Evanston, IL 60208.
IEEE Log Number 9212605.
A causal dynamic operator is one in which the present value of the output
may depend on present and past values of the input.
the task impedance are very different from those of the human
limb.
In this paper, the use of a bilateral manipulator to shape*
the perceived impedance of the environment is discussed. An
approach to impedance shaping is presented and illustrated
with an example. The example, however, also illustrates
a potential difficulty with impedance shaping. A bilateral
manipulator designed to shape the impedance of a particular
environment in a particular frequency range may, for another
environment or another frequency range, exhibit non-robust
behavior. Results from robust control theory, including the
structured singular value (p), are used to develop a powerful
stability criterion. Finally, an example of a robust impedance
shaping controller is given.
A. Power and Impedance Scaling in Bilateral Manipulation
=--he2
k+
(1)
= k,k+Ze ( 4 2 )
(2)
Pon I
I- ,
315
devices were also studied in the 1980s; notably, the development of improved myoelectric controllers for prosthetic limbs
Port2
HI,
Operator
Bilateral Manipulator
Environment
[261.
. _..._
.
376
~~1
kE
+
Environment
+ it?
a
a
+ abe
(4)
Select k+ = l / a .
Select the minimum k, necessary to match one term of
k,k+Ze(s) to the corresponding term of Z,"'(s). In this
case, k, = a2 leads to:
k,k+Z,(~)= (
a
(3)
B. Design Example
To begin, assume that the MMBM may be represented,
as in Fig. 1, by the two scale factors k, and k+. Suppose,
further, that the environment consists simply of a small block
(mass me)immersed in a viscous liquid, and that the Reynolds
number is low enough that drag forces scale linearly with the
block's length scale and velocity [35](viscous drag coefficient
be). The MMBM is to be used for manipulating the block.
If a visual display system is used to magnify the image
of this microenvironment by a certain factor a, then a good
choice of the velocity scale factor is k+ = l / a . This choice
would ensure that the perception of a 1:1 relationship between
the position of the slave's endpoint and the position of the
master's handle is maintained, as in EPP (of course, in actual
implementation, position control would be required).
E2
E1
+ ab,
Y ~ , s
(5)
AZe(s) = k~'k~'Z~'(s) - Z e ( s )
(6)
In this case:
AZe(s) = ( a 2- l)yjLes
(7)
+
+ Z,(s)).
= tk+(AZe(s) ze(s))
= a ( @ - l)yjLes
(8)
311
1
Environment
Slave Controller
Master
Bilateral Controller
Slave
Impedance Shaping Bilateral Controller
n = 100
bm= 1.0 N-dm
bs = 0.001 N-dm
Bs = 282 N-dm Ks = 8ooO N/m
0: = 25
m, = 0.5 kg
mS = 0.005 kg
Fig. 3. A one degree-of-freedom impedance shaping MMBM featuring master and slave dynamics.
..*"I.
378
-10
-20
-30
2.
4-50-
-#
-'Oi
-80
-. ..
. :1__
frequency ( d m - )
(b)
= Z(+)
+ = Y(&)
(9)
..,..-.
COLGATE: ROBUST IMPEDANCE SHAPING TELEMANIPULATION
319
4(s) =Y(S)E(S).
(10)
2 0 V Q d t ) t, L 0.
(13)
This definition applies equally to nonlinear and linear systems. Its interpretation is simply that finite energy may never
be extracted from a passive system. The hybrid matrix of a
passive LTI multiport must be positive real:
[E]
1 1 1
= 3 [ 1 -1][;]
w (s) = S ( s ) G ( s ) .
(16)
(GT7i?- f T 5 ) &
2 0 V $ ( t ) , t 2 0.
(17)
I - S*(s)S(s) 2 0
for Re{s}.
(18)
(19)
v llSelloo I
1.
(20)
0
380
0
Notice that IISstrctIlm
5 1 (the 2n-port is passive) if and only
if IISpseudol(,
5 1 and IISellm5 1 (the pseudo-operator and
environment are both passive).
Version is no
a condition on p ( s )done than Version
1; however, the problem c m now be recognized as a structured
uncertainty problem, which may be addressed by Doyles
structured singular value [16] or Boyds structured Lyapunov
functions [6]. The structured singular value of P , p ( P ) , is
defined as
0 if no A E X, solves det(I PA) = 0
PL(p) = ( A
m
;;
J - ~ ( A det(l
) I + PA) = 0) )-I
(22)
where X,(s) is defined as the class of 2n-port block diagonal
above) with no restriction
matrices (same structure as Sstrct,
on infinity norm, and F(A) is the maximum singular value
of A. A useful coupled stability condition can be stated in
terms of p:
(23)
0
A third version of the robustness criterion follows immediately.
Robustness Criterion-Version 3
0
The proof of the coupled stability theorem, therefore the
robustness condition, is straightforward with the assistance of
the multivariable Nyquist Theorem [28], because the definition
of p is essentially tautological. It may appear, in fact, that
the introduction of the structured singular value has been
counterproductive, as all perturbations A E X, must be
considered. Certain properties of p ( P ) , however, make it
possible to arrive at a condition that may be computed in
terms of P ( s ) alone.
The useful properties are the following:
d l I0n x n
,jIn
0X n ] > d l > d z
>
(26)
sup(
w
p inf
>o
where p = dl/dz.
.(
li[;;
21))
51
(28)
381
frequency (radsec)
Fig. 6. Plot of the structured singular value ( p ) associated with the bilateral
manipulator pictured in Fig. 3. p must be less than or equal to one at all
frequencies to ensure robustness. This design is not robust.
21
..,...
382
Ze
Slave Controller
Master
Slave Plant
Slave
Impedance Shaping Bilateral Controller
Bilateral Controller
Environment
Shaping
a = 25
bm = 1.O N-s/m
br = 0.001 N-dm
Bs = 400 N-s/m Ks = 4OOO N/m
m, = 0.5 kg
ms = 0.005 kg
frrquency ( d s e c )
(b)
Fig. 8. Environment admittance (upper dashed line); apparent admittance
via ideal impedance shaping bilateral manipulator pictured in Fig. 2 (lower
dashed); apparent admittance via bilateral manipulator pictured in Fig. 7
(solid). Notice similarity to Fig. 4; the revised control architecture has not
degraded performance.
383
XIO
REFERENCES
[ l ] C. J. Abul-Haj, Elbow-prosthesis emulation: A technique for the
quantitative assessment of an assistive device, Ph.D. dissertation,Mass.
Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, 1987.
[2] B. D. Adelstein, A virtual environment system for the study of human
arm tremor, Ph.D. dissertation, Mass. Inst. Technol.,Cambridge, MA,,
1989.
[3] B. D. 0. Anderson, R. W. Newcomb and J. K. Zuidweg, On the
existence of H matrices, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory, vol. CT-13, no.
1, pp. 109-110, 1966.
[4] R. J. Anderson and M. W. Spong, Asymptotic stability for force
reflecting teleoperators with time delay, in P m . IEEE Int. Con$
Robotics Automat., 1989, pp. 618-625.
[5] C. Andriot and R. Foumier, Bilateral control of teleoperators with
flexible joints by the H infinity approach, in SPIE Con$ 1833: Telemanipulutor Technol., Boston, 1992, pp. 80-91.
[6] S. Boyd and Q. Yang, Structured and simultaneous lyapunov functions
for system stability problems, In?. J. Control, vol. 49, no. 6, pp.
2215-2240, 1989.
[7] E. Colgate, On the intrinsic limitations of force feedback compliance controllers, in Robotics Res.-l989, K. Youcef-Toumi and H.
Kazemni, Eds. New York: ASME, 1989.
[8] I. E. Colgate, Coupled stability of multiport systems-Theory and
experiments, J. Dyn. Syst., Meus. Contr., in press.
[9] -,
Power and impedana scaling in bilateral manipulation, in
Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automat., 1991, pp. 2292-2297.
[ 101 -,
Robust impedance shaping via bilateral manipulation, in Proc.
American Control Con$, 1991, pp. 3070-3071.
[I I] J. E. Colgate, Stability of manipulators interacting with unstructured and structured dynamic environments, In Proc. IMACS/SlCE Int.
Symp. Robotics, Mechutronics. and Manu$ Syst., Kobe, Japan, 1992 pp.
1025-1030.
Strictly positive real admittances for coupled stability, J.
[12] -,
Franklin Inst., vol. 329, no. 3, pp. 429444, 1992.
[13] J. E. Colgate and N. Hogan, Robust control of dynamically interacting
systems, In?. J. Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 65-88, 1988.
[I41 C. A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar, Feedbnck Sysrems: Input-Output
Properties. New York: Academic, 1975.
[15] J. A. Doubler and D. S. Chddress, An analysis of extended physiological proprioception as a prosthesis control technique, J. Rehub. Res.
undDevelop., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5-18, 1984.
[I61 J. C. Doyle, Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties, in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Purt D, vol. 129, no. 6, 1981, pp.
242-250.
[17] J. C. Doyle, Structured uncertainty in control system design, in in
Proc. 24th Con$ Decision and Contr., 1985, pp. 260-265.
[ 181 J. C. Doyle and G. Stein, Multivariable feedback design: concepts for a
classicaYmodem synthesis, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 26, pp.
4-16, 1981.
[19] S. D. Eppinger and W. P. Seering, Three dynamic problems in robot
force control, IEEE Trans. Robotics Automat., vol. 8, no. 6, pp.
751-758, 1992.
[20] T. Fukuda, K. Tanie and T. Mitsuoka, A new method of master-slave
type of teleoperation for a micro-manipulator system, in Proc. IEEE
Micro Robots und Teleop. Workshop, Hyannis, MA, 1987.
[21] M. R. Glucksberg, Personal communication.
[22] K. W. Grace, J. E. Colgate, M. R. Glucksberg and J. H. Chun, A six
degree of freedom micromanipulator for ophthalmic surgery, in Proc.
IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automat., 1993, pp. 630-635.
[23] J. H. Herzog, Manual control using the matched manipulator control
technique, IEEE Trans. Man-Machine Syst., vol. MMS-9, no. 3, pp.
56-60, 1%8.
[24] N. Hogan, Controlling impedance at the madmachine interface, in
Proc. IEEE In?. Con$ Robotics Automat., 1989, pp. 1626-1631.
[25] I. W. Hunter, S. Lafontaine, P. M. F. Nielsen, P. J. Hunter and
J . M. Hollerbach, A tele-microrobot for manipulation and dynamic
mechanical testing of single living cells, in Proc. IEEE Micro Electro
Mech. Syst. Con$, 1989, pp. 102-106.
[26] S. C. Jacobsen and R. W. Mann, Control systems for artificial arms,
in Proc. IEEE Con$ Man, Syst., and Cybernetics, 1973.
[27] H. Kazerooni, Human machine interaction via the transfer of power and
information signals, IEEE Trans. Syst,, Man. Cybern., vol. SMC-20,
pp. 450-463, 1990.
[28] J. M. Maciejowski, Multivariable Feedback Design. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[29] P. A. Millman and J. E. Colgate, Design of a four degree-of-freedom
force-reflecting manipulandum with a specified forcdtorque workspace,
in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automat., 1991, pp. 1488-1493.
I
Ti-0-2
10-1
100
101
100-2
103
104
105
frequency (ndlsec)
384