Experimental Study on Shared-Control of a Mobile Robot via a Haptic Device with an Optimal Velocity Obstacle Based Receding Horizon Control Approach

  • Mojtaba Zarei
  • Navid Kashi
  • Ahmad Kalhor
  • Mehdi Tale MasoulehEmail author


This paper addresses shared-control of a single mobile robot in an unknown environment via a Haptic device in order to have a collision-free motion and damp the system’s oscillations. Employing the receding horizon concept in order to meet the controlling criteria and using the approximated non-convex constraints to ensure the near-optimality of the proposed method lead to introducing an applicable algorithm. In this regard, the velocity obstacle concept is considered as avoiding constraint for the employed receding horizon method in the motion planning unite and the proposed optimization problem is solved by the mixed integer linear programming approach. Along with the aforementioned unite, the impedance methodology is employed in order to control the Haptic device as the master controller. For the sake of tuning the controller parameters and alleviating the plausible oscillations in the control states, the oscillation number index is utilized. The obtained experimental and simulation results reveal the fact that the proposed algorithm in the fully autonomous manner outperforms its prior counterparts such as conventional potential field with genetic algorithm. The implementation results of the extended algorithm in order to perform a shared-control of a Falcon Haptic device and an Epuck mobile robot are presented.


Shared control Obstacle avoidance Mobile robots Haptic device Receding horizon concept Convex optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



There is no funding for this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

There is no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

The shown human picture in the article (Fig. 17) is the picture of one of the authors (Mr. Navid Kashi). By this means his consent with publishing this picture is stated.

Supplementary material

10846_2019_1023_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (11.7 mb)
(MP4 11.6 MB)

(MP4 27.3 MB)


  1. 1.
    Choi, D., Kim, Y., Jung, S., Kim, H.S., Kim, J.: Improvement of step-climbing capability of a new mobile robot rhymo via kineto-static analysis. Mech. Mach. Theory 114, 20–37 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoon, H.U., Wang, R.F., Hutchinson, S.A., Hur, P.: Customizing haptic and visual feedback for assistive human–robot interface and the effects on performance improvement. Robot. Auton. Syst. 91, 258–269 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chipalkatty, R., Droge, G., Egerstedt, M.B.: Less is more: Mixed-initiative model-predictive control with human inputs. IEEE Trans. Robot. 29(3), 695–703 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang, J., Di Franco, P., Astolfi, A.: Shared control for the kinematic and dynamic models of a mobile robot. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 24(6), 2112–2124 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, Y., Hua, C., Guan, X.: Synchronization control for bilateral teleoperation system with prescribed performance under asymmetric time delay. Nonlinear Dyn. 81(1-2), 481–493 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleop. Virt. 1(1), 120–126 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alfano, P.L., Michel, G.F.: Restricting the field of view: Perceptual and performance effects. Percept. Mot. Skills 70(1), 35–45 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meziane, R., Otis, M.J.D., Ezzaidi, H.: Human-robot collaboration while sharing production activities in dynamic environment: Spader system. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 48, 243–253 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fong, T.W., Conti, F., Grange, S., Baur, C.: Novel interfaces for remote driving: gesture, haptic, and pda. In: Mobile Robots XV and Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VII. Volume 4195., International Society for Optics and Photonics (2001) 300–312Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smisek, J., Sunil, E., van Paassen, M.M., Abbink, D.A., Mulder, M.: Neuromuscular-system-based tuning of a haptic shared control interface for uav teleoperation. IEEE Trans. Human-Machine Syst. 47(4), 449–461 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Y., Hua, C., Guan, X.: Finite-time synchronization control for bilateral teleoperation under communication delays. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 31, 61–69 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slawiñski, E., Mut, V., Salinas, L., García, S.: Teleoperation of a mobile robot with time-varying delay and force feedback. Robotica 30(1), 67–77 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Storms, J.G., Tilbury, D.M.: Blending of human and obstacle avoidance control for a high speed mobile robot. In: American control conference (ACC), IEEE, pp3488–3493 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keviczky, T., Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Asgari, J., Hrovat, D.: Predictive control approach to autonomous vehicle steering. In: American control conference, IEEE (2006) 6–pp (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, H., Xie, P., Yan, W.: Receding horizon formation tracking control of constrained underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 64(6), 5004–5013 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laurense, V.A., Pool, D.M., Damveld, H.J., van Paassen, M.R.M., Mulder, M.: Effects of controlled element dynamics on human feedforward behavior in ramp-tracking tasks. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. 45(2), 253–265 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chawda, V., Celik, O., O’Malley, M.K.: Evaluation of velocity estimation methods based on their effect on haptic device performance. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vulliez, M., Zeghloul, S., Khatib, O.: Design strategy and issues of the delthaptic, a new 6-dof parallel haptic device. Mech. Mach. Theory 128, 395–411 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yoon, J.W., Ryu, J., Hwang, Y.K.: Optimum design of 6-dof parallel manipulator with translational/rotational workspaces for haptic device application. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 24(5), 1151–1162 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boanta, C., Csiszar, A.: Optimal design of a parallel structure used as a haptic interface. Mech. Mach. Theory 116, 69–88 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Safaryazdi, A., Zarei, M., Abolghasemi, O., Tale Masouleh, M.: Experimental study on the model-based control of a 2-degree-of-freedom spherical parallel robot camera stabilizer based on multi-thread programming concept. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 232(10), 1882–1897 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilkie, D., Van Den Berg, J., Manocha, D.: Generalized velocity obstacles. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2009. IROS. IEEE, pp. 5573–5578 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, M., Oh, J.H.: Study on optimal velocity selection using velocity obstacle (ovvo) in dynamic and crowded environment. Auton. Robot. 40(8), 1459–1470 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiorini, P., Shiller, Z.: Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles. Int. J. Robot. Res. 17(7), 760–772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stamper, R.E.: A three degree of freedom parallel manipulator with only translational degrees of freedom. PhD thesis (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karbasizadeh, N., Zarei, M., Aflakian, A., Masouleh, M.T., Kalhor, A.: Experimental dynamic identification and model feed-forward control of novint falcon haptic device. Mechatronics 51, 19–30 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karbasizadeh, N., Aflakiyan, A., Zarei, M., Masouleh, M.T., Kalhor, A.: Dynamic identification of the novint falcon haptic device. In: 2016 4th international conference on robotics and mechatronics (ICROM), IEEE, pp. 518–523 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ding, H., Reißig, G., Groß, D., Stursberg, O.: Mixed-integer programming for optimal path planning of robotic manipulators. In: 2011 IEEE conference on automation science and engineering (CASE). IEEE, pp. 133–138 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sadeghian, R., Zarei, M., Shahin, S., Masouleh, M.T.: Vision based control and simulation of a spherical rolling robot based on ros and gazebo. In: 2017 IEEE 4th international conference on knowledge-based engineering and innovation, KBEI. IEEE, pp. 0304–0309 (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zarei, M., Novin, R.S., Masouleh, M.T.: Experimental study on optimal motion planning of wheeled mobile robot using convex optimization and receding horizon concept. In: 2016 4th international conference on robotics and mechatronics (ICROM), IEEE, pp. 386–391 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zarei, M., Kalhor, A., Rastegar, M.: Employing phase trajectory length concept as performance index in linear power oscillation damping controllers. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 98, 442–454 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zarei, M., Aflakian, A., Kalhor, A., Tale Masouleh, M.: Oscillation damping of nonlinear control systems based on the phase trajectory length concept: An experimental case study on a cable-driven parallel robot. Mech. Mach. Theory 126, 377–396 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zarei, M., Kalhor, A., Tale Masouleh, M.: An experimental oscillation damping impedance control for the novint falcon haptic device based on the phase trajectory length function concept. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zarei, M., Kalhor, A., Brake, D.: Arc-length function based maximal lypunov function and domain of attraction estimation for polynomial nonlinear systems. Automatica 90, 164–171 (2018)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zarei, M., Javadi, K., Kalhor, A.: Perturbed tumor immunotherapy domain of attraction estimation via the arc-length function. In: 25th national and 3rd international iranian conference on biomedical engineering (ICBME), IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Munawar, A., Fischer, G.: Towards a haptic feedback framework for multi-dof robotic laparoscopic surgery platforms. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), IEEE, pp. 1113–1118 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cyber-Physical Systems Lab (CPSL), Departments of Electrical and Computer EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer Science and EngineeringShahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Control and Intelligent Processing Center of Excellence, School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  4. 4.Human and Robot Interaction Laboratory School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations