Safety, stability, and intuitive control are the three most basic requirements for the design of a physical human–robot cooperation (HRC) system. High transparency is one of the main design objectives for dynamically coupled HRC systems. However, determinants of system transparency and its influence on system performance are unachievable with the current methods available. This paper presents an overview of admittance control as a method of physical interaction control between robots and human operators, in particular on the analysis of the influencing factors to the computational transparency index. The influence of frequency, sampling point number, and cutoff frequency of the weighting function on the transparency of the admittance controller were analyzed and experimentally verified. The controller was implemented on a four degree-of-freedom interactive manipulator to verify system transparency and stability. The experimental results validate the proposed framework.
AydinYTokatliOPatogluV, et al. (2018) Stable physical human-robot interaction using fractional order admittance control. IEEE Transactions on Haptics11(3): 464–475.
2.
AydinYTokatliOPatogluV, et al. (2020) A computational multicriteria optimization approach to controller design for physical human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics36(6): 1791–1804.
3.
BuergerSPHoganN (2007) Complementary stability and loop shaping for improved human–Robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics23(2): 232–244.
4.
BuergerSPKrebsHIHoganN (2001) Characterization and Control of a screw-driven robot for neurorehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE international conference on control applications, Mexico City, 7 September, pp. 388–394. New York: IEEE.
5.
Campeau-LecoursAOtisMGosselinC (2016) Modeling of physical human–Robot interaction: Admittance controllers applied to intelligent assist devices with large payload. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems13(5): 1–12.
6.
ChenJRoPI (2022) Human intention-oriented variable admittance control with power envelope regulation in physical human-robot interaction. Mechatronics84: 102802.
7.
ColonneseNOkamuraAM (2015) M-width: Stability, noise characterization, and accuracy of rendering virtual mass. The International Journal of Robotics Research34(6): 781–798.
8.
DarvishKSimettiEMastrogiovanniF, et al. (2021) A hierarchical architecture for human–Robot cooperation processes. IEEE Transactions on Robotics37(2): 567–586.
9.
DimeasFAspragathosN (2016) Online stability in human-robot cooperation with admittance control. IEEE Transactions on Haptics9(2): 267–278.
10.
FerragutiFLandiCTSabattiniL, et al. (2019) A variable admittance control strategy for stable physical human–Robot interaction. The International Journal of Robotics Research38(6): 747–765.
11.
GosselinCLaliberteTMayer-St-OngeB, et al. (2013) A friendly beast of burden: A human-assistive robot for handling large payloads. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine20(4): 139–147.
12.
HaddadiAHashtrudi-ZaadK (2008) A new robust stability analysis and design tool for bilateral teleoperation control systems. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Pasadena, CA, 19–23 May, pp. 663–670. New York: IEEE.
13.
HaddadiAHashtrudi-ZaadK (2010) Bounded-impedance absolute stability of bilateral teleoperation control systems. IEEE Transactions on Haptics3(1): 15–27.
14.
HamadYMAydinYBasdoganC (2021) Adaptive human force scaling via admittance control for physical human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Haptics14(4): 750–761.
15.
HulinTAlbu-SchafferAHirzingerG (2014) Passivity and stability boundaries for haptic systems with time delay. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology22(4): 1297–1309.
16.
HulinTPreuscheCHirzingerG (2008) Stability boundary for haptic rendering: Influence of human operator. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Nice, 22–26 September, pp. 3483–3488. New York: IEEE.
17.
LabrecquePDGosselinC (2014) Robotic force amplification with free space motion capability. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China, 31 May–7 June, pp. 134–140. New York: IEEE.
18.
LabrecquePDGosselinC (2015) Performance optimization of a multi-DOF bilateral robot force amplification using complementary stability. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE conference on control applications (CCA), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 21–23 September, pp. 519–526. New York: IEEE.
19.
LabrecquePDGosselinC (2018) Variable admittance for pHRI: From intuitive unilateral interaction to optimal bilateral force amplification. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing52: 1–8.
20.
LandiCTFerragutiFFantuzziC, et al. (2018) A passivity-based strategy for coaching in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 21–25 May, pp. 3279–3284. New York: IEEE.
21.
LawrenceDA (1993) Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation9(5): 624–637.
22.
LeeKBaekSGLeeHJ, et al. (2018) Enhanced transparency for physical human-robot interaction using human hand impedance compensation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics23(6): 2662–2670.
23.
LiHWangYLiY, et al. (2020) A novel manipulator with needle insertion forces feedback for robot-assisted lumbar puncture. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery17(2): e2226.
24.
LiHZhangLKawashimaK (2018a) Operator dynamics for stability condition in haptic and teleoperation system: A survey. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery14(2): e1881.
25.
LiHYParanawithanaLYangL, et al. (2018b) Stable and compliant motion of physical human–Robot interaction coupled with a moving environment using variable admittance and adaptive control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters3(3): 2493–2500.
26.
LinC-HWangK-JTadesseAA, et al. (2022) Human-robot collaboration empowered by hidden semi-Markov model for operator behaviour prediction in a smart assembly system. Journal of Manufacturing Systems62: 317–333.
27.
McJunkinSTLiYO’MalleyMKA (2005) Human-machine admittance and transparency adaptation in passive user interaction with a haptic interface. In: Proceedings of the 1st joint Eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems: World haptics conference, Pisa, 18–20 March, pp. 18–30. New York: IEEE.
28.
MalikAABremA (2021) Digital twins for collaborative robots: A case study in human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing68: 102092.
29.
MichelYOttCLeeD (2022) Safety-aware hierarchical passivity-based variable compliance control for redundant manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics38: 3899–3916.
30.
SchmausPLeidnerDKrugerT, et al. (2020) Knowledge driven orbit-to-ground teleoperation of a robot coworker. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5(1): 143–150.
31.
ShiDZhangWJuL, et al. (2021) Human-centred adaptive control of lower limb rehabilitation robot based on human–Robot interaction dynamic model. Mechanism and Machine Theory162: 104340.
32.
SpongMWHutchinsonSVidyasagarM (1989) Robot Modeling and Control. New York: Wiley.
33.
TosunFEPatogluV (2020) Necessary and sufficient conditions for the passivity of impedance rendering with velocity-sourced series elastic actuation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics36(3): 757–772.
34.
TsujiTMorassoPGGotoK, et al. (1995) Human hand impedance characteristics during maintained posture. Biological Cybernetics72: 475–485.
35.
Van der HelmFCTSchoutenACDe VlugtE, et al. (2002) Identification of intrinsic and reflexive components of human arm dynamics during postural control. Journal of Neuroscience Methods119: 1–14.
36.
VerdelDBastideSVignaisN, et al. (2021) An identification-based method improving the transparency of a robotic upper limb exoskeleton. Robotica39(9): 1711–1728.
37.
WangYLiH (2022) Penetration detection with intention recognition for cooperatively controlled robotic needle insertion. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control44(10): 1979–1992.
38.
WillaertBCortevilleBReynaertsD, et al. (2011) A mechatronic analysis of the classical position-force controller based on bounded environment passivity. The International Journal of Robotics Research30(4): 444–462.
39.
ZahediFChangDLeeH (2022) User-adaptive variable damping control using Bayesian optimization to enhance physical human-robot interaction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7(2): 2724–2731.
