Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T00:57:28.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Trajectory tracking compensation for teleoperation with transmission delays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Lingyan Hu
Affiliation:
Schools of Information and Mechatronics Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330031, P.R. China Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
Xiaoping P. Liu*
Affiliation:
Schools of Information and Mechatronics Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330031, P.R. China Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
Guoping Liu
Affiliation:
Schools of Information and Mechatronics Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330031, P.R. China
Shaoping Xu
Affiliation:
Schools of Information and Mechatronics Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330031, P.R. China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: xpliu@sce.carleton.ca

Summary

The proper transmission of wave variables rather than power variables in teleoperation with time delays ensures system passivity – rendering the entire system stable, but the introduction of wave variables leads to distortion between the velocities/positions of the master and slave, and the performance deteriorates significantly with the increase of time delays. This paper presents a new compensating scheme implemented at the slave side to remove or cancel partially the distortion. The system passivity can still be maintained by tuning a properly designed low-pass filter. Compared with previous work, the main contribution of this work exists in two points: first, it is the actual velocity/trajectory of the slave rather than the reference velocity/trajectory of the slave that tracks the master one, so the quality of tracking is better and converges faster; second, the proposed compensator does not require any additional signal from the master side, minimizing the amount of data transmitted over the channel, which is very important from the practical point of view. The simulation and experiment results show that the velocity (or trajectory) tracking is significantly improved under the condition of stability, and the force presented to the user is close to the environment one, meaning a high degree of system transparency is achieved.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.N'Zi, E. C., Mallem, M. and Chavand, F., “Interactive building and updating of a 3D database for teleoperation,” Robotica 15 (5), 511521 (1997).Google Scholar
2.Mut, V., Postigo, J., Slawinski, E. and Kuchen, B., “Bilateral teleoperation of mobile robots,” Robotica 20 (2), 213221 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.McIntyre, M. L., Dixon, W. E., Dawson, D. M. and Tatlicioglu, E., “Passive coordination of nonlinear bilateral teleoperated manipulators,” Robotica 24 (4), 463476 (2006).Google Scholar
4.Anderson, R. J. and Spong, M. W., “Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 34 (5), 494501 (1989).Google Scholar
5.Niemeyer, G. and Slotine, J.-J. E., “Stable adaptive teleoperation,” J. Ocean. Eng. 16 (1), 152162 (1991).Google Scholar
6.Kim, W. S., Hannaford, B. and Bejczy, A. K., “Force-refection and shared compliant control in operating telemanipulators with time delay,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8 (2), 176185 (1992).Google Scholar
7.Leung, G. M. H., Francis, B. A. and Apkarian, J., “Bilateral controller for teleoperator with time delay via mu-synthesis,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 11 (1), 105116 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Zhu, W. H. and Salcudean, S. E., “Stability guaranteed teleoperation: An adaptive motion/force control approach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC-45 (11), 19511969 (2000).Google Scholar
9.Slama, T., Trevisani, A., Aubry, D., Oboe, R. and Kratz, F., “Experimental analysis of an internet-based bilateral teleoperation system with motion and force scaling using a model predictive controller,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 55 (9), 32903299 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Al-Mouhamed, M., Nazeeruddin, M. and Merah, N., “Design and instrumentation of force feedback in telerobotics,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 58 (6), 19491957 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Polushin, I. G., Liu, P. X. and Lung, C. H., “A control scheme for stable force-reflecting teleoperation over ip networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B: Cybern. 36 (4), 930939 (2006).Google Scholar
12.Polushin, I. G., Liu, P. X. and Lung, C.-H., “A force-refection algorithm for improved transparency in bilateral teleoperation with communication delay,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 12 (3), 361374 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Munir, S. and Book, W. J., “Internet-based teleoperation using wave variables with prediction,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 7 (2), 124133 (2002).Google Scholar
14.Stramigioli, S., vander Schaft, A., Maschke, B. and Melchiorri, C., “Geometric scattering in robotic telemanipulation,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 18 (4), 558596 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Niemeyer, G. and Slotine, J.-J., “Telemanipulation with time delays,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 23 (9), 873890 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Ye, Y. and Liu, P. X., “Improving trajectory tracking in wave-variable-based teleoperation,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 15 (2), 321326 (2010).Google Scholar
17.Niemeyer, G., “Using wave variables in time delayed force reflecting teleoperation,” Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT 34 (5), 494501 (1996).Google Scholar
18.Tanner, N. A. and Niemeyer, G., “Improving perception in time-delayed telerobotics,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 24 (8), 631644 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Raju, G. J., Verghese, G. C. and Sheridan, T. B., “Internet-Based Teleoperation Using Wave Variables with Prediction,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Piscataway, NJ, USA (May 1989) pp. 13161321.Google Scholar