About toothpast

© All Rights Reserved

2 tayangan

About toothpast

© All Rights Reserved

- basicmpc.m.txt
- D S P
- Stability Analysis Method for Fuzzy Control Systems Dedicated Controlling Nonlinear Systems
- 4.0 Matrices
- VJ Presentation.ppt
- MM2 Marking Sbh
- 4040_EbeS07
- matrixproblems.pdf
- Topic 8 Matrices
- tmp5C4F.tmp
- 1st Sessional With Solution
- Invertibility Probability of Binary Matrices
- EEDIT_326
- Appendix
- DSP
- Lecture3-2
- Lect7 Systems Basic
- January 2008
- 08736322
- Lecture 2

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

4, AUGUST 1993

374

J. Edward Colgate

bilateral manipulator, the feel of the task is embodied in

the mechanical impedance of the manipulator. Ikaditiody, a

bilateral manipulator is designed for transparency; i.e., so that

the impedance reflected through the manipulator closely approximates that of the task. Impedance shaping bilateral control,

introduced here, differs in that it treats the bilateral manipulator

as a means of constructively altering the impedance of a task. This

concept is partidarly valuable if the characteristic dimensions

(e.g., force, length, time) of the task impedance are very different

from those of the human limb. It is shown that a general form

of impedance shaping control consists of a conventional powerscaling bilateral controller augmented with a real-time interactive

task simulation (i.e., a virtual environment). An approach to

impedance shaping based on kinematic similarity between tasks

of different scale is introduced and illustrated with an example. It

is shown that an important consideration in impedance shaping

controller design is robustness; i.e., guaranteeing the stability of

the operatodmanipulatodtasksystem. A general condition for the

robustness of a bilateral manipulator is derived. This condition is

based on the structured singular value (p). An example of robust

impedance shaping bilateral control is presented and discussed.

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

class of bilateral manipulators in which master and slave

operate on very different length, force, and power scales. This

class includes strength-increasing man-amplifiers [3 11 or

extenders [27] as well as dexterity-increasing macro-micro

bilateral manipulators (MMBMs) [9]. [20], [25]. Unlike more

conventional master-slave manipulators, the major impetus for

such devices is not to enable remote manipulation, but rather

is to extend the capabilities of the human limb. As such, these

devices usually exhibit some measure of power and impedance

scaling.

A basic understanding of power and impedance scaling may

be gained from Fig. 1. In this figure, an ideal bilateral

manipulator is shown connecting a 1-port operator and a 1port environment. The power transfer from the operator to

the manipulator is the product of effort and flow, $ 1 ~ 1 , while

the power transfer from the environment to the manipulator is

4 2 ~ 2[32]. These are related by the scale factors that define

the bilateral control law:

k,

41E1

=--he2

k+

(1)

factor. The impedance scaling factor, k,k+, is derived from

the relation of the impedance felt by the operator to the

impedance of the environment:

Zapp(41)

= k,k+Ze ( 4 2 )

(2)

with proper selection of k, and k+, the power and impedance

scale factors may be independently set.

2The term shape originates from the effect that the bilateral manipulator

has on the frequency response plots of linear impedance-in general, these

plots will be not only shifted, but reshaped as well.

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

an ideal (dynamics-less) power scaling bilateral manipulator. q5 is a flow

variable and E is an effort; Yo is the admittance of the operator, and 2,

is the (linear) impedance of the environment. k+ and k, are dimensionless,

static scaling factors. The power flow convention used throughout this paper

can be seen in this figure: the efforts and flows associated with all physical

subsystems (i.e., operator, manipulator, etc.) are defined such that their inner

products are the power flows into the subsystems. Subsystems are connected

with common-flow energic junctions (the bond graph I-junction 1321 ) to

assure correct signs.

passive hand tools may be classified as manipulators capable

of scaling impedance, but not power. For instance, the feel

of tightening a nut is certainly different with and without a

wrench. Also in this class are conventional micromanipulators

which employ transmissions (e.g., fine-pitch lead screws) to

scale down human motion^.^ The utility of such relatively

simple devices is evident as they are routinely used for

micropuncture of arteries less than 100 pm in diameter [21].

The idea of using bilateral manipulation to provide power

scaling appears to date to the early 1960s and the man

amplifiers built at General Electric [31]. Man amplifiers were

intended to give the ordinary man extraordinary strength,

presumably supplanting the need for an array of powered

tools, such as the hydraulic lift. The same period gave rise

to cybernetic prostheses, which were to give amputees benefits beyond those of body-powered prostheses, by providing

greater strength and more natural means of control [34].

Neither man amplifiers nor cybernetic prostheses met with

much initial success, judged in terms of user acceptance.

Common to both seemed to be the problem of mental fatigue:

they simply required too much concentration on the part of

the operator.

In the 1980s, the design of more natural human-machine

interfaces gave new life to both concepts. Kazerooni introduced the extender, which is similar to the man amplifier;

however, by being intimately connected to the powered limb

of the extender, the operator communicates with it via borh

power and information [27]. In effect, the extender is a

power-assist, not unlike a power steering system. In a careful set of experiments, Doubler and Childress demonstrated

that a very similar concept, called extended physiological

proprioception (EFT), provided significant benefits for the

control of upper-extremity prostheses [15]. It is important to

recognize that neither extenders nor EPP seek to provide a

limb replacement; rather, both seek to provide a very natural

limb extension, in much the same sense that a tennis racket

is an extension to the arm of an accomplished player. Other

approaches to achieving natural control of power-assistive

[261.

to be of more recent vintage. In 1987, Fukuda, er al. [20]

described a one degree of freedom system in which the master

and slave were parallel-jaw grippers. Stable gripping of both

hard and soft objects was demonstrated. In 1989, Hunter, et

al. [25] described a six degree of freedom system that was

developed for the mechanical testing of individual muscle

cells. In the authors laboratory, a four degree of freedom

MMBM is now under development as a tool for the study of

dexterity enhancement. The master manipulandum is described

in [29], and the slave is described in [22].

11. IMPEDANCE S W I N G

The historical review above suggests that the development

of power scaling bilateral manipulators may be considered an

ongoing effort to improve scaled manipulation via enhanced

sensory feedback. For instance, an MMBM is a natural step

beyond a fine-pitch lead screw: while both devices enable

high resolution positioning, only the MMBM provides useful

kinesthetic feedback. It has been rigorously demonstrated that

the information contained in scaled kinesthetic feedback is

useful (i.e., improves performance), at least in the case of

EPP control [ 151.

Impedance shaping is offered here as a potential evolutionary step beyond power scaling manipulation. The idea

underlying impedance shaping bilateral control is that a priori

information, in the form of a task model, may be used to

enhance performance further. In other words, the impedance

shaping bilateral controller seeks to improve performance by

adding to the sensor-based feedbacks (vision and force) a

model-based feedback (force). This idea has one clear precedent in the work of Herzog [23], who demonstrated improved

manual control when the impedance of a joystick was designed to approximate that of the plant being controlled. This,

however, was not an example of bilateral control, because

sensor-based force feedback was absent. Another precedent is

model-based control (including loopshaping techniques [ 1SI),

although the analogy to impedance shaping cannot be taken

very far. For instance, the ultimate design goals in impedance

shaping and loopshaping are rather different. In one respect,

however, there is notable similarity: an essential tradeoff in

both methods is between aggressiveness and robustness.

Impedance shaping is an approach to bilateral manipulation,

but is not a design methodology. It lacks, for instance, a

general approach to performance specification (this depends

on the task at hand and what measure of performance is

to be optimized). Nonetheless, a design methodology which

incorporates impedance shaping is entirely feasible. As an illustration of this, a specific methodology based upon kinematic

similarity is developed below and in Section IV.

A. Similarity-A

intrinsic impedance (inetia, friction) and is not at all indicative of environment

impedance.

For instance, a physical model and full-scale prototype are

. _..._

.

376

height over width) are the same in both. Kinematic similarity

requires that length scale ratios are the same in model and

prototype and time scale ratios are also the same in model

and prototype. Dynamic similarity requires that this be true

of length, time, and force scale ratios. For linear systems

represented by transfer functions, dynamic similarity implies

that the poles and zeros of the model are the same as those

of the prototype.

Geometric similarity is enforced in most implementations of

telemanipulation. In other words, the length ratios experienced

at the master are in fixed proportion to those of the task.

This is consistent with the use of visual feedback, which

produces an image that is geometrically similar to the task.

Most implementations of bilateral manipulation attempt to

enforce dynamic similarity as well. For instance, the "ideal"

power-scaling manipulator illustrated in Fig. 1 generates an

apparent impedance which is simply that of the environment

times a constant. If these impedances are linear, it is clear

that the poles and zeros are unaffected. Of course, dynamic

similarity is impossible to achieve in practice due to the effect

of manipulator dynamics on the apparent impedance (this

point will be clarified in the examples that follow), but it is

commonly taken as a design goal, termed "transparency" [ 5 ] .

An obvious limitation of dynamic similarity, however, is

that the poles and zeros of the apparent impedance cannot be

altered relative to those of the environment. Stated differently,

the forces contributed by various physical effects (e.g., inertia,

stiffness, friction) cannot be independently scaled. Yet, in the

context of micromanipulation, it may sometimes be desirable

to scale inertial forces, for instance, to a greater extent than,

say, surface tension forces. This may be done in an effort to

make the microdynamical system feel like a macrodynamical

system. One rational approach to this type of scaling problem is to enforce (via impedance shaping bilateral control)

kinematic similarity but not dynamic similarity between the

apparent impedance and the actual impedance.

The example below illustrates the distinction between conventional (dynamically similar) bilateral manipulation and

impedance shaping (kinematically similar) bilateral manipulation. It also provides the beginnings of a design methodology

for impedance shaping control.

~~1

kE

+

Environment

Fig. 2. Block diagram of an "ideal" impedance shaping bilateral controller

attached to an environment.

mass scales as length cubed, one sensible choice of the force

scale might be k, = a4,which would result in an impedance

scaling of k+kE = a3. This would make the perceived mass

equal to the expected mass of the object seen in the display,

assuming equivalent densities. The viscous forces on the mass,

however, vary according to length, so that the appropriate

scaling of the viscous component of the impedance would be

k+k, = a. The question of which of these scalings to select

has no clear answer. Any fixed scaling has the disadvantage

that the apparent impedance will be dynamically similar to

the environment impedance, and therefore will feel more

sluggish than a kinematically similar macrosystem. In other

words, a fixed scaling cannot alter the inherent time constant

( T ~= me/be)of the environment.

Now suppose ?at the MMBM incorporates an impedance

shaping term, AZe(s), as in Fig. 2. The following procedure

will enforce kinematic similarity but not dynamic similarity.

a Select a geometric scale factor, a. The time scale factor

is unity (because manipulation must occur in real-time,

any time scaling is prohibited).

a Construct a model of the environment. In this case:

Ze(s) = h e s

+ 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)

Determine the kinematically similar, scaled impedance.

In this case:

Z p ( s ) = a3yjLes

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)

Select the impedance shaping term AZe(s) according to:

AZe(s) = k~'k~'Z~'(s) - Z e ( s )

(6)

In this case:

AZe(s) = ( a 2- l)yjLes

(7)

having the following form:

zapp(s)

+

+ 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.

the apparent impedance will approach the kinematically similar impedance. It is important to recognize, however, that a

precise model of the actual impedance is not essential to the

success of the method. The apparent impedance in (8) consists

of two parts: the actual environment impedance scaled by a

fixed factor of a, and the impedance of a simulated inertia

((a2

- l ) h e s ) ,also scaled by a. The latter may be recognized

as a simple form of virtual environment; i.e., an interactive,

real-time simulation [2]. Note that this construction of Zapp(s)

will produce the desired result of amplifying inertia to a

greater extent than damping (thereby increasing the apparent

time constant of the environment), even if the-estimate heis

considerably in error, and even if the estimate be is completely

in error.

C. Discussion

be estimated on-line. It is not uncommon for a person performing a delicate task to begin by gently probing the environment.

A micromanipulator might do something similar, in order to

build an environment model. Another possibility is that the

bilateral controller include a parameter adaptation scheme that

runs continuously. One difficulty with adaptive techniques is

that they are inherently nonlinear, making performance and

stability analyses difficult. In this paper only linear timeinvariant bilateral controllers are considered-the design and

analysis of nonlinear, time-varying controllers are subjects of

future research.

111. ROBUSTNESS

In the example below, a somewhat more realistic MMBM

model involving master and slave dynamics is considered. This

example illustrates the difficulty of maintaining robustness.

depends on the availability of an environment model. The force A. Example-Poor Robustness

generated by the environment is, in general, the outcome of

A block diagram of a somewhat realistic impedance shaping

multiple physical effects. If each of these effects is subject implementation is shown in Fig. 3. The master is modeled

to a distinct scaling law, then they must be separated by as a controlled force source acting on an inertia m, with

some means in order to implement impedance shaping. It is a viscous damping b,. The slave is modeled as a controlled

reasonable conjecture that a model is the only such means, force source acting on an inertia m, with viscous damping

unless internal states of the environment can be measured b,, connected to its load via a transmission of gear ratio n. A

directly.

PI velocity controller (effectively a PD position controller) is

The need for a model highlights a potential weakness of the closed around the slave. The impedance shaping controller is

impedance shaping concept: a standard reason for choosing similar to that in Fig. 2; however, the velocity feedback term

teleoperation rather than autonomous operation is that the is taken from the actual velocity of the slave which will, in

environment is unstructured. Nonetheless, every environment general, differ from the commanded velocity.

will exhibit some structure, and what information is available

Fig. 4 compares the apparent admittance (inverse of

should be used. For instance, in microelectronics assembly, impedance) of an environment (the one considered above with

masses and coefficients of friction may well be known a me = 5 grams, be = 1 N-s/m) felt through the bilateral

priori, and in microsurgery, tissue properties may be known. manipulator to the actual admittance of the environment, the

In general, impedance shaping may be made more or less admittance that would be felt through the ideal impedance

aggressive, according to the knowledge of the environment. shaping controller of Fig. 2, and the admittance that would

Furthermore, so long as the bilateral controller meets a non- be felt if the impedance shaping were turned off. Note that

restrictive robustness criterion presented in Section 111, its the impedance shaping controller has the effects of reducing

behavior will be benign, even if the estimated and actual the admittance (amplifying the impedance) and reducing the

environment dynamics differ radically (as may occur when comer frequency (this corresponds to amplifying inertia more

the slave suddenly contacts a rigid surface).

than damping); the non-shaping controller does only the

..*"I.

378

the impedance shaping controller is designed for a specific

microenvironment, the characteristics of this environment are

subject to rapid and dramatic change. Perhaps the best illustration of this is making or breaking contact with a rigid

surface. To extend this example, suppose that contact is made

with a surface of stiffness IC, = 5 x lo4 N/m. The isolated

MMBM with impedance shaping control will remain stable

when contacting this surface; however, when the inertia of the

operator's arm is included, the entire system may lose stability.

As a specific example, suppose that the arm introduces an

inertia of m, = 2 kg. The system will exhibit unstable

oscillations at a frequency of about 125 rad/= (20 Hz)

which the operator will find disturbing, but in all likelihood,

absolutely uncontrollable.

B. Approach to Robustness

-10

-20

-30

2.

4-50-

-#

-'Oi

-80

-. ..

. :1__

frequency ( d m - )

(b)

via bilateral manipulator with no shaping (dot dash); apparent admittance

via ideal impedance shaping bilateral manipulator pictured in Fig. 2 (lower

dashed); apparent admittance via bilateral manipulator pictured in Fig. 3

(solid). Notice that all apparent admittances are far less than the actual

admittance, however, the comer frequency (at which inertial effects become

important) is moved significantly only if impedance shaping is used. Notice

that a realistic impedance shaping design (solid) is close to ideal (dashed) for

a finite frequency range; at high enough frequency, master inertia dominates

the admittance of the realistic design.

(since 1982) advances in the field of robust control. The basic

approach is to identify the class of manipulator/environment

behaviors (admittances) with which a human can be expected

to interact successfully, and to identify the class of all possible

environment behaviors. Then conditions may be placed on the

manipulator behavior to ensure that, for environment behaviors

within the latter class, manipulator/environmentbehaviors will

always fall within the former class.

It is a matter of common observation that human operators have no difficulty maintaining stability when interacting

with all manner of passive tools and environments. Indeed,

even greater skill can be expected: some tools, such as

rotary sanders and floor waxers, exhibit what are obviously

not passive impedances, but can, with some training, be

operated quite effectively. Nonetheless, the broadest class

of tooYenvironment behaviors which can, at this point, be

analytically characterized as stable under human control, is

the set of passive behaviors. A reasonable choice for the class

of environment impedances is also that of passive impedances. This has been motivated elsewhere [13]. Therefore,

the following intuitive condition for stability/robustness will

be used: a bilateral manipulator is said to be robust iJ; when

coupled to any passive environment, it presents to the operator

an impedance (admittance) which is passive. Thus, while the

apparent impedance felt through the bilateral manipulator may

exhibit a radically different magnitude, or even shape in

the frequency domain, than the environment impedance, it

must at least be passive. The mathematical statement of this

condition, and the derivation of a simple test for it, follow the

preliminaries below.

well: its admittance is comparable to that of the ideal controller

over a substantial frequency range, though at high enough

frequency it is dominated by the inertia of the master (mm).

Of course, the high-frequency dominance of inertia is an

effect which must occur in any real hand tool or bilateral C. Mathematical Preliminaries

manipulator.

Impedances, Admittances, and Hybrid Matrices -The terms

It is important, however, to assess the robustness of the

impedance shaping controller before passing final judgment. impedance and admittance may be applied to nonlinear systems as well as linear systems. Impedances and admittances

4The nonshaping controller does in fact change the shape of the admitance are causal dynamic operators that map vectors of inputs (4 and

frequency response plots, as seen in Fig. 4. This change is due to the inherent E , respectively) to vectors of outputs ( E and 4, respectively):

dynamics of the master and slave manipulators which affect the apparent

impedance, but do not contribute to intentional shaping.

= Z(+)

+ = Y(&)

(9)

..,..-.

COLGATE: ROBUST IMPEDANCE SHAPING TELEMANIPULATION

319

operators reduce to transfer function matrices:

4s) = Z(S)4(S)

4(s) =Y(S)E(S).

(10)

components of the vectors E and 4, respectively, is the notion

of a port. A physical system connects to its environment at

ports; the product ~ i d iis the power flowing into the system

at port i.

Not all multiport physical systems can be represented by

impedances or admittances. An example is the two-port transformer, which can be represented by the hybrid matrix:

been demonstrated that, for any LTI multiport, a hybrid matrix

will exist [3]. The general form of a hybrid matrix is:

Passivity and Positive Real Matrices-A passive multiport

is one for which, given zero energy storage at t = 0 [14]:

IQ:(T)d+T

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:

A test for positive realness is that the multivariable Nyquist

plots of H ( s ) must lie in the closed right half plane [8].

Scatrering Matrices-The interaction between physical systems is fundamentally bilateral; therefore, an effort ( E ) may

never exist independent of a flow ($), and vice versa. Efforts

and flows, however, are by no means the only pair of variables

that may be used to describe bilateral interaction. Any pair

related to E and 4 through a nonsingular linear transformation

is equally legitimate. Another useful set of variables is (G,

t

20 ), the inwave and outwave or scattering variables

[33]. Scattering variables relate to efforts and flows by

[E]

1 1 1

= 3 [ 1 -1][;]

t

w (s) = S ( s ) G ( s ) .

(16)

variables, a passive multiport is one for which, given zero

energy storage at t = 0 :

(GT7i?- f T 5 ) &

2 0 V $ ( t ) , t 2 0.

(17)

system in terms of scattering variables and scattering operators. (b) An

equivalent system description (except that the operator has been replaced

with a pseudo-operator).

The scattering matrix of a LTI multiport must bebounded real:

S(s) stable;

I - S*(s)S(s) 2 0

for Re{s}.

(18)

of S ( j w ) be less than or equal to one at all frequencies, or

equivalently, that the infinity norm of S ( j w ) be less than or

equal to one.

D. Robustness Criterion

bilateral manipulators that may be described by hybrid or scattering matrices; the assumption will also be made (temporarily)

that the environment is also linear. Suppose that the bilateral

manipulator and environment are described by the following

scattering matrices (see also Fig. 5(a)):

bilateral manipulator: f ( s ) =

environment: Se(s)

(19)

1) and slave ports (subscript 2). The intuitive robustness

criterion given at the beginning of this section may be stated

in terms of these matrices as shown as follows.

Robustness Criterion-Version

and:

llp11+ P12Se(I- p22Se)-1pz111mI

1

v llSelloo I

1.

(20)

0

The expression on the left is simply the infinity norm of the

380

fractional transformation of Se [17]. This statement of the

robustness criterion, however, is of little computational value,

because the norm must be computed for all n x n Se of infinity

norm less than or equal to one. A condition in terms of P ( s )

alone would be preferable.

The key to finding such a condition lies in recognizing that

the conditions sought are equivalent to the conditions for the

stability of the telemanipulator/environment when coupled to

a pseudo-operator which is passive, but otherwise arbitrary.

This can be understood by replacing the operator block in Fig.

5(a) with an arbitrary passive n-port, then asking the question,

under what conditions on P ( s ) is stability guaranteed? The

conditions are the same as those sought here, because a

necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee the stability5

of a LTI system coupled to an arbitrary passive n-port, is

that the system itself appear to be passive [8]. Thus, by

proving coupled stability-the stability of the telemanipulator

coupled to an environment and pseudo-operator which are

both passive but otherwise arbitrary-the apparent passivity

of the telemanipulator/environmentis implicitly proved. This

reasoning leads to the revised block diagram in Fig. 5(b), and

to a second statement of the robustness condition:

Robustness Criterion-Version 2

the following criteria on structure and infinity norm:

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:

passive, block diagonal 2n-port (Sstrct

(23)

0

A third version of the robustness criterion follows immediately.

Robustness Criterion-Version 3

plane, and:

(24)

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=

d l I0n x n

,jIn

0X n ] > d l > d z

>

(26)

from the definition Of p(>? the

Property follOws

second from the fact that D-AD = where A E xm

Together these properties

p ( M ) 5 a(DMD-1).

that, if the right hand side is minimized over all allowable D ,

the equality holds. This result was first proved by Doyle, who

also showed that the optimization problem is convex, ensuring

the tractable computation of p ( P ) 1161. Thus, a useful form

Of the robustness condition is finally achieved as fOllOWS..

Robustness Criterion-Version 4

Environments

and

guaranteed to remain stable when coupled to an arbitrary,

51n this paper, stability means that all the poles of the LTI system lie

in the closed left half plane. This includes what is sometimes known as

marginal stability, and does not guarantee asymptotic stability. A guarantee of

asymptotic stability requires that the pseudo-operatorenvironment be strictly

passive according to criterion given in [12].

sup(

w

p inf

>o

where p = dl/dz.

.(

li[;;

21))

51

(28)

381

equivalent to the passivity of P. In macro-micro manipulation,

P will never be passive due to the amplification inherent in

the scale factors IC, and IC+(IC,/k+ > 1). Thus, the freedom

provided by the parameter ,l3 is essential to the utility of the

above condition.

In [6], Boyd and Yang demonstrate via Lyapunov and

absolute stability theory, that if D exists such that DPD-

is bounded real, then P will remain stable when coupled to

any nonlinear, passive, block-diagonal 2n-port; i.e., a causal

dynamic operator satisfying the passivity condition of (13),

and the structure condition of (21). This condition is more

conservative than Doyles only in that D is not frequency

dependent. The corresponding robustness condition is shown

as follows.

frequency (radsec)

plane, and p > 0 exists such that:

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.

pseudo-operators,

be positive real. This admittance consists

$PZ1

is bounded real.

U of the sum of two parts: the intrinsic admittance of the

servo-controlled slave, and the admittance of the feedback

Boyd and Yang also show that an equivalent condition exists

loop via the bilateral controller, maskdoperator, and slave.

in terms of hybrid matrices. It is perfectly analogous, and can

The former is typically positive real while the latter, due to

be obtained by replacing P with H , and bounded real with

noncollocation, cannot be. However, in part due to the large

positive real in the statement above. A similar result, which

gear ratio, the admittance of the slave is very small (i.e., it is

does not use input-output descriptions at all, but instead relies

nonbackdriveable), thus the total admittance is dominated by

on a network representation of an operator-telemanipulatorthat part which is not positive real. This difficulty is exactly

environment system, is described by Anderson in [4].

analogous to the compliance control of a nonbackdriveable

Remark 2: In addition to nonlinear environments, the conrobot, which is discussed in [7].

dition is useful in dealing with nonlinear manipulator dynamOf the two factors, the more difficult to contend with

ics. It is often possible to treat a bilateral manipulator as a

is generally nonbackdriveability. In [lo], a similar example

pair of 2n-port nonlinear admittances (master and slave mechwhich includes noncollocation, but no gear ratio, is considered.

anisms) sandwiching a 2n-port LTI controller. This breakdown

It is shown that a low pass filter in the force feedback path is

allows the nonlinear mechanism dynamics to be absorbed into sufficient to provide robustness. Even so, the design process

the operator and environment descriptions.

employed is ad hoc and not readily generalized to more

In the next section, these results will be used to analyze

complex situations.

impedance shaping controllers.

Further strides can be made by eliminating both nonbackdriveability and noncollocation. An example of such a

Iv. EXAMPLE

OF ROBUSTIMPEDANCE SHAPING

design is illustrated in Fig. 7. The placement and role of the

BILATERAL

CONTROL

impedance shaping term are now quite intuitive: as in the

The nonrobustness of the MMBM considered in Section III- ideal case (see Fig. 2), the shaping term is a real-time enviA can be verified by computing the structured singular value ronment simulation that augments the physical environment.

of its scattering matrix. The result is displayed in Fig. 6. An This term is readily implemented as part of the collocated

attempt was made to improve the robustness properties of this feedback of the slave; i.e., the slave control law becomes

MMBM by including various forms of compensation in both

the feedforward (velocity) and feedback (force) paths. Fairly

K8

) - B8

- AZ,(s) 42(5)

extensive exploration failed to produce any design that would E,o,trol(S) = &PI & A Z ( ~ =

[

s

satisfy the robustness criterion over all frequencies, although

(29)

violations could be pushed to quite high frequency. This where 4 2 is the velocity of the slave, and E control is the

problem appears to stem from two factors: noncollocation [ 191 control force applied to the slave which is the sum of PI control

and nonbackdriveability. Noncollocation describes a situation (&PI)and impedance shaping ( E A Z ) terms.

The force feedback signal is based on the PI control effort

in which significant dynamics separates sensor and actuator

signals; nonbackdriveability describes the property of low rather than the force at the slave/environmentinterface, making

output admittance in a manipulator. In terms of these factors, it effectively collocated with the velocity of the master, 41.

the difficulty may be understood as follows: the admittance Note that, due to the low inertia and backdriveability of the

that the bilateral manipulator presents to the environment slave, the PI control effort will, under most circumstances,

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

force feedback has little effect on performance: the performance of this design is shown in Fig. 8, which compares

quite well to Fig. 4.

The real benefit of this approach is robustness, as illustrated

in Fig. 9. It is interesting to note that the optimal scaling p

is found to be p = a-1.5independent of frequency, so that

the design is robust for even nonlinear environments. It may

appear from Fig. 9, however, that the design is only marginally

robust, as the structured singular value is approximately unity

across the frequency spectrum. Somewhat surprisingly, this is

the desired result. As an illustration of this point, consider

a bilateral manipulator that behaves as a rigid body (many

hand tools behave approximately as rigid bodies). Because

such a manipulator would be lossless, its structured singular

value would be one at all frequencies. Greater robustness could

be achieved by adding internal dissipation, but this is not

necessarily desirable.

A final point regarding the architecture f f Fig. 7 is that

robustness will be guaranteed whenever AZ, is positive real

(it can then be lumped together with 2, without altering the

assumption of passivity). Thus, the shaping term should be selected to supplement the passive dynamics of the environment,

but not subtract from those dynamics.

V. CONCLUSION

The principal contributions of this paper have been the

introduction of impedance shaping bilateral control and the

development of a powerful robustness criterion for bilateral

manipulation. A design approach based on kinematic similarity

has emerged through the examples. This approach may be

summarized as follows.

Select a scale factor a and design an impedance shaping

term (AZ,) according to the procedure given in Section

11-B. The shaping term should be positive real.

Using a backdriveable slave manipulator, implement bilateral control as indicated in (29) and Fig. 7 (collocated

position and velocity feedback for servo control of slave;

collocated feedback for impedance shaping; and constant

scale factors).

While this approach may serve as the basis for a formal

methodology, issues stemming from master and slave dynam-

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.

implementation need to be thoroughly addressed. Moreover,

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)

Fig. 7. This design is robust, because p is slightly less than 1 at all frequencies.

an optimum, approach to impedance shaping.

Ultimately the utility of the impedance shaping concept,

and of any other approaches to enhancing operator dexterity,

must be borne out experimentally. An MMBM comprising

a four degree-of-freedom master manipulandum, a six degreeof-freedom slave manipulator, and a transputer-based real time

controller, is being developed for this purpose [30]. Because

the impedance shaping term is essentially a virtual environment, this system is also able to execute real-time virtual

environment simulations, outputting forces of interaction via

the master manipulandum.

The robustness criterion presented here is broadly applicable to problems in telemanipulation; however, it remains

conservative in the following respects: it assumes that the

environment is unstructured, and it requires that the apparent

impedance felt through the bilateral manipulator be passive.

As pointed out in the discussion of impedance shaping, some

understanding of environment structure generally does exist,

and should be exploited. The appropriate restriction on the

apparent impedance merits experimental investigation, and it

may be found that the restriction to passivity can be relaxed.

Unfortunately, removing that which is conservative in the

problem statement does not mean a more powerful robustness

criterion will be found. The mathematics may simply not be

tractable. To address this issue, a generalized description of

physical (bilateral) interaction, based on neither hybrid nor

scattering descriptions, is being developed. The idea is to

select that description which optimally encodes the available

information (e.g., passivity, environment dynamics, etc.) into

a simple measure such as the infinity norm. This would enable

the robustness theory presented here to be extended to a significantly larger class of environment, operator, and manipulator

behaviors. Preliminary results have been presented in [ 1 I].

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author also thanks Ambarish Goswami for his careful

reading of this manuscript.

384

for the implementation and kinesthetic display of virtual environments,

in SPIE Con$ 1833: Telemanipulator Technology,, Boston 1992, pp.

49-57.

R. S. Mosher, From handiman to hardiman, Soc. of A~tomor.Eng.

Trans., vol. 16, pp. 588-597, 1967.

H. M. Paynter, Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems. Cambridge, M A MIT Press, 1961.

H. M. Paynter and I. J. Busch-Vishniac, Wave-scattering approaches

to conservation and causality, J. Franklin Inst., vol. 325, no. 3, pp.

295-313, 1988.

N. Weiner, Cybernetics. New York Wiley, 1961.

F. M. White, Fluid Mechanics. New York McGraw-Hill, 1979.

physics and the S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from tie Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Since 1988, he has been an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at

Northwestem University, Evanston, IL.His areas of

interest include haptic interface to teleoperators and

virtual environments, robotic tools for microsurgery,

electrostatic actuators, and modeling and control of

dynamic systems.

- basicmpc.m.txtDiunggah olehjiugarte1
- D S PDiunggah olehShashi Yadav
- Stability Analysis Method for Fuzzy Control Systems Dedicated Controlling Nonlinear SystemsDiunggah olehmranga
- 4.0 MatricesDiunggah olehjuriah binti ibrahim
- VJ Presentation.pptDiunggah olehganapathy2010sv
- MM2 Marking SbhDiunggah olehSimPor
- 4040_EbeS07Diunggah olehDiDo Mohammed Abdulla
- matrixproblems.pdfDiunggah olehDaniel Dan
- Topic 8 MatricesDiunggah olehmaths_w_mr_teh
- tmp5C4F.tmpDiunggah olehFrontiers
- 1st Sessional With SolutionDiunggah olehTahir Iqbal
- Invertibility Probability of Binary MatricesDiunggah olehItachy Uchiha
- EEDIT_326Diunggah olehMuralidharan Radhakrishnan
- AppendixDiunggah olehRaman Kanaa
- DSPDiunggah olehEngr-Junaid Mukhtar
- Lecture3-2Diunggah olehFatmir Kelmendi
- Lect7 Systems BasicDiunggah olehPratyush Gupta
- January 2008Diunggah olehCameisha Foster
- 08736322Diunggah olehSalim Boulkroune
- Lecture 2Diunggah olehSuleman Mirza
- MatlabDiunggah olehpranav raichur
- Lecture 3Diunggah olehnadra_ar
- 55.befl05.55Diunggah olehSaher
- Inverse MatrixDiunggah olehprashant
- A Cone Compl. Lin. Alg. for Statis Output-Feedback and Related ProblemsDiunggah olehAnonymous DgWkoyXPA
- Determinan 4x4Diunggah olehMas Gund
- Fire Seat 2010 Pp 037 SunDiunggah olehMariano Serrano
- DEIM-RT-07-003Diunggah olehPerseu PadreDe Macedo
- Chiang 1988bDiunggah olehthiago_sp19858151
- Matrices Determinants MSDiunggah olehRenario Gule Hinampas Jr.

- 10.1.1.475.5081Diunggah olehverdos
- Eisenberg12-0825740Diunggah olehverdos
- Pale Obi OdbDiunggah olehverdos
- Masin-2009cDiunggah olehverdos
- Baby ShampooDiunggah olehverdos
- Ni Hms 480579Diunggah olehverdos
- kyfanDiunggah olehverdos
- 672Diunggah olehverdos
- Stryk92-optimizationDiunggah olehverdos
- repastTurorialDiunggah olehmojesmece
- Ieee Cvpr 04Diunggah olehverdos
- 2N2222ADiunggah olehGerardo Gómez Nava
- Sd ArticleDiunggah olehverdos
- Full TextDiunggah olehverdos
- 10.1.1.56.1427Diunggah olehverdos
- Goksel07_miccaiDiunggah olehverdos
- Annihilators.dviDiunggah olehverdos
- Binomial FiltersDiunggah olehverdos
- bf95Diunggah olehverdos
- GeneratingFunctionsDiunggah olehverdos
- StirlingDiunggah olehverdos

- Ruszkowski Et Al (AIChE2005)Diunggah olehDũng Sĩ Diệt Muỗi
- 10.1016@j.jprocont.2016.11.001Diunggah olehAnonymous 8pCXXs
- Stable, bounded and periodic solutions in a non-linear second order ordinary differential equation.Diunggah olehAJER JOURNAL
- mathDiunggah olehCharlie Cheng-Ying Hsieh
- 8Diunggah olehMohamad Ali Ansari
- 10.1007%2F978-3-642-30668-6Diunggah olehAtul Chauhan
- An Adaptive Controller Using Output Feedback for Improving Dynamic Stability of Synchronous Power SystemDiunggah olehনূর হোসেন সৌরভ
- 1 Kinematics Localization and ControlDiunggah olehidorofte8235
- Michel Miller Ordinary Differential EquationsDiunggah olehVinicius
- Open Electives for II & IV YearDiunggah olehVicky Jaiswal
- Modeling and Analysis of an Svirs Epidemic Model Involving External Sources of DiseaseDiunggah olehijteee
- Lyapunov StabilityDiunggah olehSukhbir Dhillon
- Lecture 5 Emotion Logic EncounterDiunggah olehDev Kumar
- Backstepping1 Lyapunov StabilityDiunggah olehdannyabe
- 10.1016@j.jfranklin.2017.08.035.pdfDiunggah olehabbas tkj1
- The Inverted Pendulum BenchmarkDiunggah olehfawadn_84
- Transient Stability Assessment of a Small Power System Subjected to Large DisturbancesDiunggah oleholsaydim
- mtech 2 sem syllabus sv universityDiunggah olehTejaRam Augusthya
- Microbial GrowthDiunggah olehWaleed Murad
- Construction of Lyapunov-Krasovskii Functional ForDiunggah olehJaredRojas
- CSAKI - Control Theories_textDiunggah olehsdpsk
- Cc3717 Sliding Mode Control for a Class of Simo Under-Actuated SytemsDiunggah olehbeesah
- Cobb Douglas Solucion GeneralDiunggah olehcristianmondaca
- Obesity mathematical modelDiunggah olehEnrique Lozano
- Dynamics of Second Order Rational Diff[1]Diunggah olehkokurin65
- Exercise 1 2018Diunggah olehTrungtin Bui Duc
- Applied Mathematics and Computation Volume 235 issue 2014 [doi 10.1016_j.amc.2014.02.091] Liu, Qun; Liu, Yiliang; Pan, Xue -- Global stability of a stochastic predatorâ€“prey system with infinite dela.pdfDiunggah olehKartika Nugraheni
- Real-Time Speed Control of BLDC Motor Based on Fractional Sliding Mode Controller[#270628]-237219Diunggah olehhieuhuech
- control system syllabusDiunggah olehSarath George
- ME677c9 FeedbackLinearization tDiunggah olehElizabeth Johns