Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:59:01.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Parametric Study of Compliant Link Design for Safe Physical Human–Robot Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2021

Yu She Open the ORCID record for Yu She [Opens in a new window] ,
Siyang Song ,
Hai-jun Su  and
Junmin Wang
Yu She*
Affiliation:
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar St, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Siyang Song
Affiliation:
Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Hai-jun Su
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Junmin Wang
Affiliation:
Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Robots of next-generation physically interact with the world rather than be caged in a controlled area, and they need to make contact with the open-ended environment to perform their task. Compliant robot links offer intrinsic mechanical compliance for addressing the safety issue for physical human–robot interactions (pHRI). However, many important research questions are yet to be answered. For instance, how do system parameters, for example, mechanical compliance, motor torque, impact velocities, and so on, affect the impact force? how to formulate system impact dynamics of compliant robots, and how to size their geometric dimensions to maximize impact force reduction. In this paper, we present a parametric study of compliant link (CL) design for safe pHRI. We first present a theoretical model of the pHRI system that is comprised of robot dynamics, an impact contact model, and dummy head dynamics. After experimentally validating the theoretical model, we then systematically study the effects of CL parameters on the impact force in more detail. Specifically, we explore how the design and actuation parameters affect the impact force of pHRI system. Based on the parametric studies of the CL design, we propose a step-by-step process and a list of concrete guidelines for designing CL with safety constraints in pHRI. We further conduct a simulation case study to validate this design process and design guidelines.

Keywords

DesignModelingCompliant linksVariable stiffness linksPhysical human–robot interaction
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 39 , Issue 10 , October 2021 , pp. 1739 - 1759
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Versace, J., A Review of the Severity Index, SAE Technical Paper 710881 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, D. and Wampler, C. W., “Head injury criterion,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 16(4), 71–74 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A. and Hirzinger, G., “Requirements for safe robots: Measurements, analysis and new insights,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 28(11), 1507–1527 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO10218-1:2006, Robots for Industrial Environments - Safety Requirements. Part I: Robot (International Organization for Standarization, 2006).Google Scholar
Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Frommberger, M., Rossmann, J. and Hirzinger, G., “The ‘DLR Crash Report’: Towards a Standard Crash-Testing Protocol for Robot Safety-Part I: Results,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2009) pp. 272–279.Google Scholar
Melvin, J., Human Tolerance to Impact Conditions as Related to Motor Vehicle Design, SAE Report J885 (1980).Google Scholar
Vanderborght, B., etc., “Variable impedance actuators: A review,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 61(12), 1601–1614 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albu-Schäffer, A., Haddadin, S., Ott, C., Stemmer, A., Wimböck, T. and Hirzinger, G., “The DLR lightweight robot: Design and control concepts for robots in human environments,” Ind. Rob. 34(5), 376–385 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficuciello, F., Villani, L. and Siciliano, B., “Variable impedance control of redundant manipulators for intuitive human–robot physical interaction,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 31(4), 850–863 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffranchi, M., Tsagarakis, N. G. and Caldwell, D. G., “Analysis and development of a semiactive damper for compliant actuation systems,” IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. 18(2), 744–753 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauteux, P., Lauria, M., Heintz, B. and Michaud, F., “Dual-differential rheological actuator for high-performance physical robotic interaction,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 26(4), 607–618 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sodano, H. A., Bae, J. S., Inman, D. J. and Belvin, W. K., “Improved concept and model of eddy current damper,” J. Vib. Acoust. 128(3), 294–302 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, C. Y., “Fluid dynamics and behavior of nonlinear viscous fluid dampers,” J. Struct. Eng. 134(1), 56–63 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, G. A. and Williamson, M. M., “Series Elastic Actuators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (1995) pp. 399–406.Google Scholar
Bicchi, A., Tonietti, G. and Piaggio, E., “Design, Realization and Control of Soft Robot Arms for Intrinsically Safe Interaction with Humans,” IARP/RAS Workshop on Technical Challenges for Dependable Robots in Human Environments (2002) pp. 79–87.Google Scholar
Bicchi, A., etc, “Physical Human-Robot Interaction: Dependability, Safety, and Performance,” The 10th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (2008) pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
Bicchi, A. and Tonietti, G., “Fast and ‘soft-arm’ tactics robot arm design.,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 11(2), 22–33 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonietti, G., Schiavi, R. and Bicchi, A., “Design and Control of a Variable Stiffness Actuator for Safe and Fast Physical Human Robot Interaction,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2005) pp. 526–531.Google Scholar
Schiavi, R., Grioli, G., Sen, S. and Bicchi, A., “VSA-II: A Novel Prototype of Variable Stiffness Actuator for Safe and Performing Robots Interacting with Humans,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2008) pp. 2171–2176.Google Scholar
Wolf, S. and Hirzinger, G., “A New Variable Stiffness Design: Matching Requirements of the Next Robot Generation,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2008) pp. 1741–1746.Google Scholar
Wolf, S., Eiberger, O. and Hirzinger, G., “The DLR FSJ: Energy Based Design of a Variable Stiffness Joint,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2011) pp. 5082–5089.Google Scholar
Friedl, W., Höppner, H., Petit, F. and Hirzinger, G., “Wrist and Forearm Rotation of the DLR Hand Arm System: Mechanical Design, Shape Analysis and Experimental Validation,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2011) pp. 1836–1842.Google Scholar
Zinn, M., Roth, B., Khatib, O. and Salisbury, J. K., “A new actuation approach for human friendly robot design,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 23(4–5), 379–398 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, l., Garabini, M., Laffranchi, M., Kashiri, N., Tsagarakis, N. G., Bicchi, A. and Caldwell, D. G., “Optimal Control for Maximizing Velocity of the CompAct™ Compliant Actuator,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2013) pp. 516–522.Google Scholar
Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Eiberger, O. and Hirzinger, G., “New Insights Concerning Intrinsic Joint Elasticity for Safety,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2010) pp. 2181–2187.Google Scholar
Vuong, N. D., Li, R., Chew, C. M., Jafari, A. and Polden, J., “A novel variable stiffness mechanism with linear spring characteristic for machining operations,” Robotica 35(7), 1627–1637 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W., Fu, X., Li, Y. and Yun, C., “Design and implementation of a variable stiffness actuator based on flexible gear rack mechanism,” Robotica 36(3), 448–462 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, K. C., Clark, J. E. and Koditschek, D. E., “Variable stiffness legs for robust, efficient, and stable dynamic running,” J. Mech. Robot. 5(1), 011009 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. J., Cheng, S., Kim, S. and Iagnemma, K., “A novel layer jamming mechanism with tunable stiffness capability for minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 29(4), 1031–1042 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, L., Arabagi, V. and Sitti, M., “Shape memory polymer-based flexure stiffness control in a miniature flapping-wing robot,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 28(4), 987–990 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. J., Kim, B. S., Song, J. B. and Kim, H. S., “Safe Link Mechanism Based on Passive Compliance for Safe Human-Robot Collision,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2007) pp. 1152–1157.Google Scholar
Park, J. J., Kim, B. S., Song, J. B. and Kim, H. S., “Safe link mechanism based on nonlinear stiffness for collision safety,” Mech. Mach. Theory 43(10), 1332–1348 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Laliberté, T. and Gosselin, C., “Force capabilities of two-degree-of-freedom serial robots equipped with passive isotropic force limiters,” J. Mech. Robot. 8(5), 051002 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
She, Y., Su, H. J., Lai, C. and Meng, D., “Design and Prototype of a Tunable Stiffness Arm for Safe Human-Robot Interaction,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (2016) pp. V05BT07A063.Google Scholar
She, Y., Su, H. J., Lai, C. and Meng, D., “Design and modeling of a continuously tunable stiffness arm for safe physical human–robot interaction,” J. Mech. Robot. 12(1), 011006 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stilli, A., Wurdemann, H. A. and Althoefer, K., “Shrinkable, Stiffness-Controllable Soft Manipulator Based on a Bio-Inspired Antagonistic Actuation Principle,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2014) pp. 2476–2481.Google Scholar
Stilli, A., Wurdemann, H. A. and Althoefer, K., “A novel concept for safe, stiffness-controllable robot links,” Soft Robot. 4(1), 16–22 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
She, Y., Su, H. J. and Hurd, C. J., “Shape Optimization of 2D Compliant Links for Design of Inherently Safe Robots,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (2015) pp. V05BT08A004.Google Scholar
She, Y., Su, H. J., Meng, D., Song, S. and Wang, J., “Design and modeling of a compliant link for inherently safe corobots,” J. Mech. Robot. 10(1), 011001 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz, H., “On the contact on elastic solids,” J. Math. 92, 156–171 (1881). (in German); also in: Miscellaneous Papers (in English), Macmillan, London (1896).Google Scholar
Park, J. J., Haddadin, S., Song, J. B. and Albu-Schäffer, A., “Designing Optimally Safe Robot Surface Properties for Minimizing the Stress Characteristics of Human-Robot Collisions,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2011) pp. 5413–5420.Google Scholar
Herman, I. P., Physics of the Human Body (Springer, New York, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
She, Y., Compliant Robotic Arms for Inherently Safe Physical Human-Robot Interaction Ph.D. Thesis (The Ohio State University, New York City, 2018).Google Scholar
Chen, G. and Howell, L., “Two general solutions of torsional compliance for variable rectangular cross-section hinges in compliant mechanisms,” Precis. Eng. 33(3), 268–274 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauzier, N. and Gosselin, C., “A comparison of the effectiveness of design approaches for human-friendly robots,” J. Mech. Des. 137(8), 082302 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, M., Moreira, P., Flores, P. and Lankarani, H. M., “Compliant contact force models in multibody dynamics: Evolution of the Hertz contact theory,” Mech. Mach. Theory 53, 99–121 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, N., Haisler, W. E. and Goforth, R. E., “Finite element analysis of Hertz contact problem with friction,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 3(1), 39–56 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storakers, B. and Elaguine, D., “Hertz contact at finite friction and arbitrary profiles,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids 53(6), 1422–1447 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Book, W. J., “Recursive Lagrangian dynamics of flexible manipulator arms,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 3(3), 87–100 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cetinkunt, S. and Book, W. J., “Symbolic modeling and dynamic simulation of robotic manipulators with compliant links and joints,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 5(4), 301–310 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moallem, M., Patel, R. V. and Khorasani, K., “An inverse dynamics control strategy for tip position tracking of flexible multi–link manipulators,” J. Robot. Syst. 14(9), 649–658 (1997).3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, G. P. and Lim, C. W., “Dynamics studies of a flexible hub–beam system with significant damping effect,” J. Sound Vib. 318(1–2), 1–17 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, P., Shihabudheen, K. V and Jacob, J., “Precise non linear modeling of flexible link flexible joint manipulator,” Int. Review Model. Sim. 5(3B), 1368–1374 (2012).Google Scholar
Song, S., She, Y., Wang, J. and Su, H., “Toward tradeoff between impact force reduction and maximum safe speed: Dynamic parameter optimization of variable stiffness robots,” J. Mech. Robot. 12(5), 054503–054511 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar