Combining energy and power based safety metrics in controller design for domestic robots

This paper presents a general passivity based interaction controller design approach that utilizes a combined energy and power based safety norms to assert safety of domestic robots. Since these robots are expected to co-habit the same environment with a human user, analysing and ensuring their safety is an important requirement. Safety analysis of domestic robots determine whether a robot achieves a desired safety level according to some quantitative safety metrics. When it comes to controller design for human friendly robots, it often involves introducing compliance and ensuring asymptotic stability using impedance control technique and passivity theories. The controller proposed in this work also uses a passive design that extends the standard impedance control scheme with energy and power based safety metrics to ensure that safety requirements defined in these norms are achieved by domestic robots. The effectiveness of the proposed guideline is illustrated with simulation and experimental results.

[1]  J. Versace A Review of the Severity Index , 1971 .

[2]  Nikolaos G. Tsagarakis,et al.  Safe human robot interaction via energy regulation control , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[3]  Romeo Ortega,et al.  Passivity-based Control of Euler-Lagrange Systems , 1998 .

[4]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Requirements for Safe Robots: Measurements, Analysis and New Insights , 2009, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[5]  Francis A. DiLorenzo Power and Bodily Injury , 1976 .

[6]  Koji Ikuta,et al.  Safety Evaluation Method of Design and Control for Human-Care Robots , 2003, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[7]  Stefano Stramigioli,et al.  PID motion control tuning rules in a damping injection framework , 2013, 2013 American Control Conference.

[8]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Fast and "soft-arm" tactics [robot arm design] , 2004, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[9]  Christopher J. Harper,et al.  Towards the Development of International Safety Standards for Human Robot Interaction , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[10]  Stefano Stramigioli,et al.  Modeling and IPC Control of Interactive Mechanical Systems - A Coordinate-Free Approach , 2001 .

[11]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Robust compliant motion for manipulators, part I: The fundamental concepts of compliant motion , 1986, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..

[12]  Jae-Bok Song,et al.  Collision analysis and evaluation of collision safety for service robots working in human environments , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics.

[13]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance control - An approach to manipulation. I - Theory. II - Implementation. III - Applications , 1985 .

[14]  P. Beyl,et al.  The Role of Compliance in Robot Safety , 2010 .

[15]  J A Newman,et al.  A proposed new biomechanical head injury assessment function - the maximum power index. , 2000, Stapp car crash journal.

[16]  Alexander Zelinsky,et al.  Quantitative Safety Guarantees for Physical Human-Robot Interaction , 2003, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[17]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  An atlas of physical human-robot interaction , 2008 .

[18]  Andrea Maria Zanchettin,et al.  A novel passivity-based control law for safe human-robot coexistence , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[19]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Human head-neck biomechanics under axial tension. , 1996, Medical engineering & physics.

[20]  Romeo Ortega,et al.  Putting energy back in control , 2001 .

[21]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part I—Theory , 1985 .

[22]  J. L. Wood,et al.  Dynamic response of human cranial bone. , 1971, Journal of biomechanics.