Human Centered Mechatronics

  • Alberto Jardón Huete
  • Santiago Martinez de la Casa


Mechatronics is an applied interdisciplinary science that aims to integrate mechanical elements, electronics and parts of biological organisms. Mechatronics’ end goal is to design useful products. When those products are focused in human welling, helping them or by restoring lost capabilities, any mechatronics solution should consider at the beginning of the design process that all the mechanics, control and electronics must work cooperatively with and for human. Several challenges related to control issues and the role of human and machine in the control loop could be better achieved if human centered mechanical design approaches are assumed. From a mechanical point of view the development of robots that could operate in close interaction with human is a big challenge. Soft human–robot interaction is the branch that covers those topics. To analyze this fact, in this chapter, a general classification of the different types of robotic systems that currently could be found as well as actuators commonly used. The safety of the robotic assistant, working in close cooperation with humans, is currently a topic of interest in the robotics community. There are many ways to design and conduct intrinsically safe systems, from those that use complex sensory systems to monitor the user within the working environment to avoid contact, even the most sophisticated seeking to minimize the inertia of its moving parts (links) in order to reduce damage in case of accidental collision. Safety mechanisms will be reviewed based on variable stiffness actuators, novel designs of all-gear-motor shaft, etc. The study will include risk assessment and safety for the user. Risk and safety standards will be reviewed. Taking into account undesired collision, two types of safety strategies are reported: pre-contact and post-contact strategies. The first minimize the possible effect of the accident before it occurs. The latter should minimize the consequences of that accident. Those new advances in the design techniques are being applied for ultra-light weight robotics arms and also prosthesis combined with new solutions in kinematic synthesis, materials, geometry and shape of mechanical components, actuators technologies and new thermal and FEM analysis techniques to validate them.


Impedance Control Service Robot Robot Interaction Output Shaft Head Injury Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Albu-Schaffer A, Ott C, Hirzinger G (2005) A unified passivity based control framework for position, torque and impedance control of flexible joint robots. Int Symp Rob ResGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell R, Reinert D (1990) Risk and system integrity concepts for safety-related control systems. In: Redmill F, Anderson T (eds) Safety-critical systems: current issues, techniques and standards. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bharadwaj K, Sugar TG, Koeneman JB, Koeneman EJ (2005) Design of a robotic gait trainer using spring over muscle actuators for ankle stroke rehabilitation. ASME J Biomech Eng 127:1009–1013 (Special Issue on Medical Devices)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bicchi A, Tonietti G (2004) Fast and soft arm tactics: dealing with the safety-performance trade-off in robot arms design and control. IEEE Rob Autom Mag 11(2):22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bicchi A, Rizzini L, Tonietti G (2001) Compliant design for intrinsic safety: general issues and preliminary design. Int Conf Intell Rob SystGoogle Scholar
  6. Bicchi A, Tonietti G, Bavaro M, Piccigallo M (2003) Variable stiffness actuators for fast and safe motion control. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O, Groen FCA (eds) Proceedings of ISRR 2003, Springer tracts in advanced robotics (STAR). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks RA (1991) Intelligence without reason. Int Joint Conf on Artif Intell 569-595Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell DG, Tsagarakis NG, Kousidou S, Costa N, Sarakoglou I (2007) Development of a soft Exoskelton. Int J Humanoid Rob 4(3):1–24Google Scholar
  9. Casals A, Villa R, Casals D (1993) A soft assistance arm for thetraplegics. TIDE congress pp 103–107Google Scholar
  10. Casillas I, Jardón A, Gimenéz A, López JA (2007) Diseño de una articulación de impedancia variable basada en un fluido magnetoreológico. VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Ingenieria MecánicaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheing E, Lumelsky V (1989) Proximity sensing in robot manipulator motion planning: system and implementation issues. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 5:740–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chou CP, Hannaford B (1996) Measurement and modeling of McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles. Trans Rob Autom 12(1):90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corke PI (1999) Safety of advanced robots in human environments. A discussion paper for International Advances Robotics Program, Online: Accessed Oct 2010
  14. Daerden F, Lefeber D (2002) Pneumatic artificial muscles: actuators for robotics and automation. Eur J Mech Environ Eng 47(1):10–21Google Scholar
  15. De Luca A, Lucibello P (1998) A general algorithm for dynamic feedback linearization of robots with elastic joints. IEEE Int Conf Robot Automat pp 504–510Google Scholar
  16. De Luca A, Albu-Schaffer A, Haddadin S, Hirzinger G (2006) Collision detection and safe reaction with the DLR-III lightweight manipulator arm. IEEE/RS J Int Conf Intell Rob Syst 1623–1630Google Scholar
  17. Del Ama AJ, Gil A, et al (2010) Exoesqueletos híbridos para la compensación de la marcha. XXXV Jornadas de AutomáticaGoogle Scholar
  18. Dombre E, Poignet P, Pierrot F, Duchemin G, Urbain L (2001) Intrinsically safe active robotic systems for medical applications. IARP/IEEE-RAS Joint workshop on technical challenge for dependable robots in human environments pp 21–22Google Scholar
  19. Echávarri J, Carbone G, Muñoz JL, Ceccarelli M (2007) Safety issues for service robots. Int Conf RobGoogle Scholar
  20. English C, Russell D (1999) Mechanics and stiffness limitations of a variable stiffness actuator for use in prosthetic limbs. Mech Mach Theor 34(1):7–25MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gadd CW (1966) Use of weighted impulse criterion for estimating injury hazard. Stapp Car Crash Conf 164–174Google Scholar
  22. Haddadin S, Albu-Schaffer A, De Luca A, Hirzinger G (2008a) Collision detection and reaction: a contribution to safe physical human-robot interaction. IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Rob SystGoogle Scholar
  23. Haddadin S, Albu-Schaffer A, Frommberger M, Hirzinger G (2008b) The role of the robot mass and velocity in physical human-robot interaction—part II: constrained blunt impacts. IEEE Int Conf Rob Autom 2:1331–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haddadin S, Albu-Schaeffer A, Eiberger O, Hirzinger G (2010) New insights concerning intrinsic joint elasticity for safety. IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Rob SystGoogle Scholar
  25. Helms E, Schraft RD, Haegele, M (2002) Rob@work: robot assistant in industrial environments. International workshop on robot and human interactive communication pp 399–404Google Scholar
  26. Harwin W, Rahman T (1992) Safe software in rehabilitation mechatronic and robotics design. RESNA 15th Annual Conference pp 100–102Google Scholar
  27. Heinzmann J, Zelinsky A (1999) The safe control of human-friendly robots. IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Rob Syst pp 1020–1025Google Scholar
  28. Hirzinger G, Albu-Schaffer A, Hahnle M, Schaefer I, Sporer N (2001) On a new generation of torque controlled light-weight robots. IEEE Int Conf Rob AutomGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirzinger G, Albu-Schaffer A, Ott C, Frese U (2003) Cartesian impedance control of redundant robots: recent results with the DLR-light-weight-arms. Int Conf Rob AutomGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogan N (1985) Impedance control: an approach to manipulation. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 107(1):1–24MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hollander K, Sugar T, Herring D (2005) Adjustable robotic tendon using a ‘‘jack spring’’. Int Conf Rehabil Rob pp 113–118Google Scholar
  32. Homayoun S, Bon B (1999) Real-time collision avoidance for position-controlled manipulators. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 15:670–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hurst JW, Chestnutt J, Rizzi A (2004) An actuator with mechanically adjustable series compliance. Carnegie Mellon University, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Ikuta, Ishii, Nokata (2003) Safety evaluation method of design and control for human-care robots. Int J Rob ResGoogle Scholar
  35. Iwata H, Hoshino H, Morita T, Sugano S (2001) Force detectable surface covers for humanoid robots. IEEE/ASME Int Conf Adv Intell Mech 1205–1210Google Scholar
  36. Jacobsen SC et al (2008) Development of the utah artificial arm. Trans Biomed Eng 4:249–269Google Scholar
  37. Jardón A (2006) Assistive robot design methodology: Application to portable robot ASIBOT. PhD Thesis, Carlos III University of Madrid, MadridGoogle Scholar
  38. Jardón A, Martínez S, Giménez A, Balaguer C (2007) Assistive robots dependability in domestic environment: the ASIBOT kitchen test bed. IARP-IEEE/RAS-EURON Joint workshop on shared control for robotic ultra-operationsGoogle Scholar
  39. Kawamura S, Yamamoto T, Ishida D, Ogata T, Nakayama Y, Tabata O, Sugiyama S (2002) Development of passive elements with variable mechanical impedance for wearable robots. IEEE Int Conf Rob Autom 1:248–253Google Scholar
  40. Kelly R, Ortega R, Ailon A, Loria A (1994) Global regulation of flexible joints robots using approximate differentiation. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 39(6):1222–1224MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koganezawa K, Inaba T, Nakazawa T (2006) Stiffness and angle control of antagonistically driven joint. IEEE/RAS-EMBS Int Conf Biomed Rob Biomechatron pp 1007–1013Google Scholar
  42. Kyberd PJ et al (2001) The design of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a study of the southampton hand. Robotica 16(6):593–600Google Scholar
  43. Lanari L, Sicard P, Wen JT (1993) Trajectory tracking of flexible joint robots: A passivity approach. Eur Control ConfGoogle Scholar
  44. McDermid J (1990) Issues in the development of safety critical systems. In: Redmill F, Anderson T (eds) Safety-critical systems: current issues, techniques and standards. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Migliore SA, Brown EA, DeWeerth SP (2005) Biologically inspired joint stiffness control. IEEE Int Conf Rob Autom pp 4508–4513Google Scholar
  46. Morita T, Sugano S (1996) Development of 4-DOF manipulator using mechanical impedance adjuster. Int Conf Rob Autom 4:2902–2907Google Scholar
  47. Pratt G, Williamson M (1995) Series elastic actuators. IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Rob Syst 1:399–406Google Scholar
  48. Project MORPHA (2001), Web: Accessed Oct 2010
  49. Rahman T, Sample W, Jayakumar S, King MM et al (2006) Passive exoskeletons for assisting limb movement. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rhim S, Ryu J, Park K, Lee S (2007) Performance evaluation criteria for autonomous cleaning robots. IEEE Int Symp Comput Intell Rob Autom 1:167–172Google Scholar
  51. Spong MW (1987) Modeling and control of elastic joint robots. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 109(4):310–319MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sulzer J, Peshkin M Patton J (2005) MARIONET: An exotendondriven, rotary series elastic actuator for exerting joint torque. Int Conf Rob Rehabil pp 103–108Google Scholar
  53. Thorson M et al (2007) Design considerations for a variable stiffness actuator in a robot that walks and runs. JSME Conf Rob Mechatron pp 101–105Google Scholar
  54. Tonietti G, Schiavi R, Bicchi A (2005) Design and control of a variable stiffness actuator for safe and fast physical human/robot interaction. IEEE Int Conf Rob Autom 526–531Google Scholar
  55. Twendy-one, WASEDA University Sugano Laboratory TWENDY team (2010), Accessed April 2010
  56. Van Der Loos HFM, Lees DS, Leifer LJ (1992) Safety considerations for rehabilitative and human service robot systems. RESNA Annu Conf 322–324Google Scholar
  57. Van Ham R, Vanderborght B, Van Damme M, Verrelst B, Lefeber D (2007) MACCEPA, the mechanically adjustable compliance and controllable equilibrium position actuator: design and implementation in a biped robot. Rob Autom Syst 55(10):761–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Verrelst B, Van Ham R, Vanderborght B, Lefeber D, Daerden F, Van Damme M (2006) Second generation pleated pneumatic artificial muscle and its robotic applications. Adv Rob 20(7):783–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Versace J (1971) A review of the severity index. Stapp Car Crash Conf pp 771–796Google Scholar
  60. Virk GS, Moon S, Gelin R (2008) ISO standards for service robots. International workshop on climbing and walking robots and the support technologies for mobile machines pp 133–138Google Scholar
  61. Wichert GV, Lawitzky G (2001) Man-machine interaction for robot applications in everyday environment. IEEE International workshop on robot and hum interaction pp 18–21Google Scholar
  62. Wolf S, Hirzinger G (2008) A new variable stiffness design: matching requirements of the next robot generation. IEEE Int Conf Rob AutomGoogle Scholar
  63. Yardley A, Parrini G, Carus D, Thorpe J (1997) Development of an upper limb orthotic exercise system. ICORR pp 59–62Google Scholar
  64. Zinn M, Khatib O, Roth B, Salisbury JK (2002) A new actuation approach for human friendly robot design. Symp Exp Rob ISER’02Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Jardón Huete
    • 1
  • Santiago Martinez de la Casa
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics LabCarlos III UniversityLeganés, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations