Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:08:25.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discrete-time control of bilateral teleoperation systems: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Amir Aminzadeh Ghavifekr
Affiliation:
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Amir Rikhtehgar Ghiasi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Mohammad Ali Badamchizadeh*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

The possibility of operating in remote environments using teleoperation systems has been considered widely in the control literature. This paper presents a review on the discrete-time teleoperation systems, including issues such as stability, passivity and time delays. Using discrete-time methods for a master-slave teleoperation system can simplify control implementation. Varieties of control schemes have been proposed for these systems and major concerns such as passivity, stability and transparency have been studied. Recently, unreliable communication networks affected by packet loss and variable transmission delays have been received much attention. Thus, it is worth considering discrete-time theories for bilateral teleoperation architectures, which are formulated on the same lines as the continuous-time systems. Despite the extensive amount of researches concerning continuous-time teleoperation systems, only a few papers have been published on the analysis and controller design for discrete bilateral forms. This paper takes into account the challenges for the discrete structure of bilateral teleoperation systems and notifies the recent contributions in this area. The effect of sampling time on the stability-transparency trade-off and the task performance is taken into consideration in this review. These studies can help to design guidelines to have better transparency and stable teleoperation systems.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hokayem, P. F. and Spong, M. W., “Bilateral teleoperation: An historical survey,” Automatica 42, 20352057 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, P. H. and Kim, J., “Telepresence index for bilateral teleoperations,” Syst. Man, Cybernet. Part B: Cybernet., IEEE Trans. 42, 8192 (2012).Google Scholar
Vidyasagar, M., Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems, ed: (Prentice Hall, 1993).Google Scholar
Nuño, E., Basañez, L. and Ortega, R., “Passivity-based control for bilateral teleoperation: A tutorial,” Automatica 47, 485495 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eusebi, L. and Melchiorri, C., “Force reflecting telemanipulators with time-delay: Stability analysis and control design,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14, 635640 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Do, N. D. and Namerikawa, T., “Four-channel force-reflecting teleoperation with impedance control,” Int. J. Adv. Mechatr. Syst., 2, 318329 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokokohji, Y. and Yoshikawa, T., “Bilateral control of master-slave manipulators for ideal kinesthetic coupling-formulation and experiment,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 10, 605620 (1994).Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Hua, C. and Guan, X., “Finite time control design for bilateral teleoperation system with position synchronization error constrained,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. 46, 609619 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karafyllis, I. and Kravaris, C., “From Continuous-Time Design to Sampled-data Design of Nonlinear Observers,” Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (2008) pp. 5408–5413.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, M., Aziminejad, A., Patel, R. and Moallem, M., “Discrete-time bilateral teleoperation: modelling and stability analysis,” Control Theor. Appl., IET. 2, 496512 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgate, J. E. and Schenkel, G. G., “Passivity of a class of sampled-data systems: Application to haptic interfaces,” J. Robot. Syst. 14, 3747 (1997).Google Scholar
Gil, J. J., Avello, A., Rubio, A. and Florez, J., “Stability analysis of a 1 dof haptic interface using the routh-hurwitz criterion,” Control Syst. Technol. IEEE Trans. 12, 583588 (2004).Google Scholar
Yoshida, K., Yamada, T. and Yabuta, T., “Digital Control Stability Improvement of Master-slave Manipulator System,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems' 91.'Intelligence for Mechanical Systems (1991) pp. 929–937.Google Scholar
Leung, G. and Francis, B., “Delayed Force Feedback in the Digital Implementation of Space Teleoperators,” Proceedings of the 7th CASI Conference on Austronautics, 200 (1992).Google Scholar
Yang, T., Fu, Y. and Tavakoli, M., “Digital versus analog control of bilateral teleoperation systems: A task performance comparison,” Control Eng. Practice 38, 4656 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, T., Fu, Y. L. and Tavakoi, M., “An Analysis of Sampling Effect on Bilateral Teleoperation System Transparency,” Proceedings of the 34th Chinese Control Conference (2015) pp. 5896–5900.Google Scholar
Hashtrudi-Zaad, K. and Salcudean, S. E., “Analysis of control architectures for teleoperation systems with impedance/admittance master and slave manipulators,” The Int. J. Robot. Res. 20, 419445 (2001).Google Scholar
Niemeyer, G. and Slotine, J.-J., “Stable adaptive teleoperation,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 16, 152162 (1991).Google Scholar
Stramigioli, S., “About the use of Port Concepts for Passive Geometric Telemanipulation with Varying Time Delays,” in Proceedings to the 8th Mechatronics Forum (2002) pp. 944–953.Google Scholar
Van Der Schaft, A. J. and Van Der Schaft, A., L2-gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control vol. 2 (Springer, 2000).Google Scholar
Secchi, C., Stramigioli, S. and Fantuzzi, C., “Variable delay in scaled port-Hamiltonian telemanipulation,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes 39, (2006), pp. 476481.Google Scholar
Jazayeri, A. and Tavakoli, M., “A passivity criterion for sampled-data bilateral teleoperation systems,” Haptics, IEEE Trans. 6, 363369 (2013).Google Scholar
Jazayeri, A. and Tavakoli, M., “A Passivity Criterion for Sampled-data Bilateral Teleoperation Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE World Haptics Conference (2011) pp. 487–492.Google Scholar
Ogata, K., Discrete-time Control Systems vol. 2 (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995).Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. V. and Willsky, A. S., “S. H. Nawab Signals and systems,” Prentice Hall, 1, 997 (1997).Google Scholar
Sheng, J. and Liu, P. X., “A Review of Bilateral Sampled-data Control of Teleoperators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, (2004) pp. 385–390.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. J. and Spong, M. W., “Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 34, 494501 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, G. and Francis, B., “Bilateral Control of Teleoperators with Time Delay Through a Digital Communication Channel,” Proceedings of the Annual Allerton Conference On Communication Control And Computing, (1992) pp. 692–692.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. J., “Building a Modular Robot Control System using Passivity and Scattering Theory,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, (1996) pp. 698–705.Google Scholar
Kosuge, K. and Murayama, H., “Bilateral Feedback Control of Telemanipulator Via Computer Network in Discrete Time Domain,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, (1997) pp. 2219–2224.Google Scholar
Secchi, C., Stramigioli, S. and Fantuzzi, C., “Digital Passive Geometric Telemanipulation,” Proceedings of the ICRA, (2003) pp. 3290–3295.Google Scholar
Chopra, N., Spong, M. W. and Lozano, R., “Synchronization of bilateral teleoperators with time delay,” Automatica 44, 21422148 (2008).Google Scholar
Chopra, N., Berestesky, P. and Spong, M. W., “Bilateral teleoperation over unreliable communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 16, 304313 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berestesky, P., Chopra, N. and Spong, M. W., “Discrete Time Passivity in Bilateral Teleoperation Over the Internet,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, (2004) pp. 4557–4564.Google Scholar
Mastellone, S., Lee, D. and Spong, M. W., “Master-Slave Synchronization with Switching Communication through Passive Model-based Control Design,” Proceedings of the American Control Conferenc, (2006), p. 6.Google Scholar
Polushin, I. and Marquez, H., “Stabilization of bilaterally controlled teleoperators with communication delay: An ISS approach,” Int. J. Control 76, 858870 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setoodeh, P., Sirouspour, S. and Shahdi, A., “Discrete-Time Multi-model Control for Cooperative Teleoperation under Time Delay,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, (2006) pp. 2921–2926.Google Scholar
Hwang, D.-Y., Hannaford, B. and Choi, H., “Identification of feasible scaled teleoperation region based on scaling factors and sampling rates,” KSME Int. J. 15, 19 (2001).Google Scholar
Diolaiti, N., Niemeyer, G., Barbag, F. and Salisbury, J. K. Jr, “Stability of haptic rendering: Discretization, quantization, time delay and coulomb effects,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 22, 256268 (2006).Google Scholar
Abbott, J. J. and Okamura, A. M., “Effects of position quantization and sampling rate on virtual-wall passivity,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21, 952964 (2005).Google Scholar
Jazayeri, A. and Tavakoli, M., “Absolute stability analysis of sampled-data scaled bilateral teleoperation systems,” Control Eng. Practice 21, 10531064 (2013).Google Scholar
Tavakoli, M., Aziminejad, A., Patel, R. V. and Moallem, M., “Stability of Discrete-time Bilateral Teleoperation Control,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (2007) pp. 1624–1630.Google Scholar
Miandashti, N. and Tavakoli, M., “Stability of Sampled-data, Delayed Haptic Interaction under Passive or Active Operator,” IET Control Theory Appl. 8, 17691780 (2014).Google Scholar
Yin, S., Koti, A., Haddadi, A. and Hashtrudi-Zaad, K., “Uncoupled Stability Analysis of Haptic Simulation Systems for Various Kinematic Sampled Data and Discretization Methods,” Proceedings of the Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS), (2014) pp. 563–568.Google Scholar
Haddadi, A. and Hashtrudi-Zaad, K., “Stability Analysis of Haptic Interfaces for Different Types of Sampled Signals and Virtual Environment Implementations,” Proceedings of the Haptics Symposium, (2010) pp. 293–299.Google Scholar
Mizuochi, M. and Ohnishi, K., “Coding and Decoding Scheme for Wide-band Bilateral Teleoperation,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, (2012) pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Kubo, R. and Ohnishi, K., “Method for bandwidth compression and transmission of environmental information in bilateral teleoperation,” IEE J. Trans. Ind. Appl. 129 (3), (2009).Google Scholar
Huang, K. and Lee, D., “Hybrid Virtual-proxy based Control Framework for Passive Bilateral Teleoperation Over the Internet,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (2011) pp. 149–156.Google Scholar
Yang, T., Fu, Y. L. and Tavakoi, M., “FPAA-based control of bilateral teleoperation systems,” Proceedings of the 34th Chinese Control Conference, (2015) pp. 5841–5845.Google Scholar
Wrock, M. and Nokleby, S., “An automatic switching approach to teleoperation of mobile-manipulator systems using virtual fixtures,” Robotica 35, 17731792 (2017).Google Scholar