Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:43:21.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To enhance transparency of a piezo-actuated tele-micromanipulator using passive bilateral control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2009

R. Seifabadi ,
S. M. Rezaei ,
S. Shiry Ghidary ,
M. Zareinejad  and
M. Saadat
R. Seifabadi*
Affiliation:
New Technologies Research Centre (NTRC), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Mechnical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
S. M. Rezaei
Affiliation:
New Technologies Research Centre (NTRC), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Mechnical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
S. Shiry Ghidary
Affiliation:
New Technologies Research Centre (NTRC), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Computer Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
M. Zareinejad
Affiliation:
New Technologies Research Centre (NTRC), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Mechnical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
M. Saadat
Affiliation:
Mechnical Engineering Department, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: reza.seifabadi@queensu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper presents the research work on a 1 degree of freedom (DOF) force reflecting tele-micromanipulation system. This system enables a human operator to position remote objects very precisely having haptic feedback. The slave robot is a nano-positioning piezo-actuator with hysteretic dynamics. This intrinsic nonlinearity results in positioning inaccuracy and instability. Hence, a LuGre friction model is employed to model and compensate for this undesirable behavior. By means of a transformation, the 2-DOF master–slave system (1-DOF each) is decomposed into two 1-DOF new systems: the shape system, representing the master–slave position coordination, and the locked system, representing dynamics of the coordinated system. A key innovation of this paper is to generalize this approach to the hysteresis-type nonlinear teleoperated systems. For the shape system, a position tracking controller is designed in order to achieve position coordination. This position coordination is guaranteed not only in free space motion, but also during contact at the slave side. Furthermore, a force tracking controller is designed for the locked system in order to achieve tracking of the force exerted on the master and slave robots. Using this force controller, transparency is remarkably enhanced. Based on the virtual flywheels concept, passivity of the closed-loop teleoperator is guaranteed against dynamic parameter uncertainties and force measurement inaccuracies. The simulation and experimental results verify the capability of the proposed control architectures in achieving high-level tracking of the position and force signals while the system remains stable.

Keywords

Macro–micro teleoperationPiezo-actuatorHysteresis nonlinearityLuGre friction modelPosition and force trackingDecompositionShape and locked systemsVirtual flywheelPassivityScaling
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , September 2010 , pp. 689 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

1.Kawaji, A., Arai, F. and Fukuda, T., “Calibration for contact type of micro-manipulation,” Proc. 1999 IEEE/RSJ Intern. Conf. Intelligent Robotic, Kyongju, Korea (1999).Google Scholar
2.Yu, S. and Nelson, B. J., Microrobotic Cell Injection (IROS, Seoul, Korea, 2001) pp. 620–625.Google Scholar
3.Bergander, A., Breguet, J. M., Perez, R. and Clavel, R., “PZT based manipulators for cell biology,” Int. Symp. Micromechatronics and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan (2001) pp. 193–196.Google Scholar
4.Lin, F. J., Shieh, H. J. and Huang, P. K., “Adaptive wavelet neural network control with hysteresis estimation for piezo-positioning mechanism,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 17 (2) (Mar. 2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Mayergoyz, D., “Dynamic preisach models of hysteresis,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 24 (6), 2925–2927 (Nov. 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Reimers, A. and Torre, E. D., “Fast preisach-based magnetization model and fast inverse hysteresis model,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 34 (6), 3857–3866 (Nov. 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Song, D. and Li, C. J., “Modeling of piezo actuator's nonlinear and frequency dependent dynamics,” Mechatronics 9, 391–410 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Mittal, S. and Menq, C. H., “Hysteresis compensation in electromagnetic actuators through preisach model inversion,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 5 (4), 394–409 (Dec. 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Tzen, J. J., Jeng, S. L. and Chieng, W. H., “Modeling of piezoelectric actuator for compensation and controller design,” Precision Eng. 27, 70–86 (Jan. 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Shieh, H.-J., Lin, F.-J., Huang, P.-K. and Teng, L.-T., “Adaptive displacement control with hysteresis modeling for piezoactuated positioning mechanism,” IEEE Trans. Industr. Electr. 53 (3), 905–914 (June 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lin, F. J., Shieh, H. J., Huang, P. K. and Shieh, P.-H., “An adaptive recurrent radial basis function network tracking controller for a two-dimensional piezo-positioning stage,” IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 55, 183–198 (2008).Google ScholarPubMed
12.Lawrence, D. A. (1992), “Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9 (5), 625–637 (1992).Google Scholar
13.Yokokohji, Y. and Yoshikawa, T., “Bilateral control of master–slave manipulators for ideal kinesthetic coupling-formulation and experiment,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 10 (5), 605–620 (1994).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Li, P. Y., “Passive control of bilateral teleoperated manipulators,” Proc. American Control Conference. (Philadelphia, 1998) pp. 3838–3842.Google Scholar
15.Lee, D. and Li, P. Y., “Passive bilateral control and tool dynamics rendering for nonlinear mechanical teleoperators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21 (5), 936–951 (Oct. 2005).Google Scholar
16.Lee, D. and Li, P. Y., “Passive bilateral feedforward control of linear dynamically similar teleoperated manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 19 (3), 443–456 (Jun. 2003).Google Scholar
17.Seifabadi, R., Rezaei, S. M. and Shiry, S., “Robust impedance control of a delayed telemanipulator considering hysteresis nonlinearity of the piezo-actuated slave robot,” EuroHaptics 2008, LNCS 5024 (2008) pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
18.Boukhnifer, M. and Ferreira, A., “H ∞ Loop shaping bilateral controller for a two-fingered tele-micromanipulation system,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 15 (5), 891–905 (Sep. 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Li, P. Y. and Horowitz, R., “Passive velocity field control of mechanical manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 15 (4), 751–763 (Aug. 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, US, 1990).Google Scholar
21.Canudas de wit, C., Olsson, H., Astom, K. and Lischinsky, P., “A new model for control of systems with friction,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 40 (3), 419–425 (Mar. 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Gafvert, M., Comparison of Two Friction Model, Master Thesis (Automatic Control Department, Lunde Institute of Technology, 1996).Google Scholar
23.Kuhnen, K. and Janocha, H., “Complex hysteresis modeling of a broad class of hysteretic nonlinearities,” Proc. 8th Int. Conf New Achraiors, Bremen (Jun. 2002) pp. 688–691.Google Scholar
24.Habibollahi, H., Rezaei, M., Ghidary, S. S., Zareinejad, M., Seifabadi, R. and Razi, K., “Multirate prediction control of piezoelectric actuators,” IFAC, Seoul, South Korea (2008).Google Scholar
25.Habibollahi, H., Rezaei, M., Ghidary, S. S., Zareinejad, M., Razi, K. and Seifabadi, R., “Hysteresis compensation of piezoelectric actuators under dynamic load condition,” IROS, San Diego, CA (2007).Google Scholar
26.Wang, Y., Xiong, Z., Ding, H. and Zhu, X., “Nonlinear friction compensation and disturbance observer for a high-speed motion platform,” Proc. 2004 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics 6. Automation, New Orleans, LA (Apr. 2004).Google Scholar
27.Tan, D., Wang, Y. and Zhang, L., “Reserch on the parameter identification of LuGre tire model based on genetic algorithm,” ISKE-2007 Proc. Berlin (Oct. 2007).Google Scholar
28.Seifabadi, R., Modeling of a Teleoperation System with Piezo-Actuator for Micromanipulation, Master Thesis (Mechanical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), 2008) pp. 83–84, 118.Google Scholar
29.Barabanov, N. and Ortega, R., “Necessary and sufficient conditions for passivity of the LuGre friction model,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 45 (4), 830–832 (Apr. 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Niemeyer, G., Using Wave Variables in Time Delayed Force Reflecting Teleoperation, Ph.D. Thesis (Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996) pp. 269–281.Google Scholar
31.Lee, D. J. and Spong, M. N., “Passive bilateral teleoperation with constant time delay,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 22 (2) (Apr. 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar