Performance of robotic teleoperation system with flexible slave device

This paper presents a comparison of four control strategies for a teleoperation system with a flexible link slave. In the classic literature, slave devices are considered only with rigid links whereas applications such as space robotics include flexible links. Thus, a more realistic model of a telemanipulator to compare and evaluate the performance of control architectures for teleoperation needs to be developed. The simulation is based on a one degree of freedom telemanipulation system available in our laboratory. Results indicate that position control modes could yield better performance than rate control when considering point-to-point tests.

[1]  R. H. Cannon,et al.  Initial Experiments on the End-Point Control of a Flexible One-Link Robot , 1984 .

[2]  Ron Daniel,et al.  Specification and design of input devices for teleoperation , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[3]  J. K. Salisbury,et al.  Kinesthetic coupling between operator and remote manipulator , 1980 .

[4]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback , 1989, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[5]  Mathukumalli Vidyasagar,et al.  Passive control of a single flexible link , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[6]  Won Soo Kim,et al.  Operator Performance with Alternative Manual Control Modes in Teleoperation , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[7]  Shui-Shong Lu,et al.  Experiments on the position control of a one-link flexible robot arm , 1987, 26th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[8]  A. K. Bejczy,et al.  Advanced control techniques for teleoperation in earth orbit , 1980 .

[9]  George C. Verghese,et al.  Design issues in 2-port network models of bilateral remote manipulation , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[10]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  Experimental and simulation studies of hard contact in force reflecting teleoperation , 1988, Proceedings. 1988 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[11]  A. K. Bejczy,et al.  Force-reflective teleoperated system with shared and compliant control capabilities , 1989 .

[12]  Lawrence W. Stark,et al.  A comparison of position and rate control for telemanipulations with consideration of manipulator system dynamics , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[13]  Mathukumalli Vidyasagar,et al.  Passivity of flexible beam transfer functions with modified outputs , 1991, Proceedings. 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[14]  Dale A. Lawrence.  Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[15]  T. Turner,et al.  Control system analysis and synthesis for a six degree-of-freedom universal force-reflecting hand controller , 1980, 1980 19th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes.

[16]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Controlling impedance at the man/machine interface , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[17]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  HUMAN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ISOMETRIC AND ELASTIC RATE CONTROLLERS IN A 6 DOF TRACKING TASK , 1993 .

[18]  A. K. Bejczy,et al.  Experimental results with a six-degree-of-freedom force-reflecting hand controller , 1981 .

[19]  Duane T. McRuer.  HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS IN COMPENSATORY SYSTEMS , 1965 .

[20]  Mathukumalli Vidyasagar,et al.  Transfer functions for a single flexible link , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[21]  Sukhan Lee,et al.  Generalized bilateral control of robot arms , 1984 .