Advertisement

An in Vivo Experiment to Assess the Validity of the Log Linearized Hunt-Crossley Model for Contacts of Robots with the Human Abdomen

  • F. Courreges
  • M. A. Laribi
  • M. Arsicault
  • S. Zeghloul
Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 37)

Abstract

A key issue in Human-Robot physical interaction is the real-time perception of contact impedance by the robot. The Hunt-Crossley (HC) model is a popular model of contact force with soft biological tissues as it enjoys accuracy with low-complexity properties and its parameters are physically sound. Because the original HC model is non-linear, the current best known approach of real-time identification consists in identifying the parameters of a log linearized version of the HC model, by means of a Recursive Least Squares (RLS) algorithm. But, the final model used for exploitation in robot control, is the original non-linear HC model with the previously identified parameters. Hence, this approach may be questionable concerning the modeling accuracy and some authors prefer rejecting the HC model. This paper presents for the first time an in vivo experiment to assess the performances of contact models with the human abdomen. In particular we show here through a statistical analysis, that the log linearized HC model should be considered as a contact model on its own and replace the original non-linear HC model for both identification and exploitation.

Keywords

Contact modeling Hunt-Crossley model Log linearized Hunt-Crossley model Model selection Nonparametric goodness-of-fit test Medical robotics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the French Research National Agency (ANR) - convention ANR-14-CE27-0016.

References

  1. 1.
    Burnham, K., Anderson, D.R.: Model selection and model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New-York, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diolaiti, N., Melchiori, C., Stramigioli, S.: Contact impedance estimation for robotic systems. IEEE Trans. Robot 21(5), 925–935 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorbunova, A.A., Lemeshko, B.Y., Lemeshko, S.B., Rogozhnikov, A.P.: Application of nonparametric goodness-of-fit tests for composite hypotheses in case of unknown distributions of statistics. International Workshop—Applied Methods of Statistical Analysis. Simulations and Statistical Inference—AMSA’ 2013, pp. 8–24. Novosibirsk, Russia (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haddadi, A., Hashtrudi-Zaad, K.: Real-time identification of hunt-crossley dynamic models of contact environment. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28(3), 555–566 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Hirzinger, G.: On making robots understand safety: embedding injury knowledge into control. Int. J. Robot. Res. 31, 1578–1602 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt, K., Crossley, F.: Coefficient of restitution interpreted as damping in vibroimpact. ASME J. Appl. Mech. pp. 440–445 (1975)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lemeshko, B.Y., Lemeshko, S.B., Postovalov, R.A.: Real-time studying of statistic distributions of nonparametric goodness-of-fit tests when testing complex hypotheses. In: International Workshop—Applied Methods of Statistical Analysis. Simulations and Statistical Inference, pp. 19–27. Novosibirsk, Russia (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lens, T., Radkhah, K., von Stryk, O.: Simulation of dynamics and realistic contact forces for manipulators and legged robots with high joint elasticity. In: International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 34–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mobasser, F., Hashtrudi-Zaad, K.: Implementation of a rate mode impedance reflecting teleoperation controller on a haptic simulation system. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1974–1979 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moreira, P., Zemiti, N., Liu, C., Poignet, P.: Viscoelastic model based force control for soft tissue interaction and its application in physiological motion compensation. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 116, 52–67 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Okamura, A., Verner, L., Yamamoto, T., Gwilliam, J., Griffiths, P.: Surgical robotics, systems applications and visions, Chap. 18, force feedback and sensory substitution for robot-assisted surgery, pp. 419–448. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Owen, A.B.: Empirical Likelihood. Monographs on statistics and applied probability. CHAPMAN & HALL/CRC, Boca Raton (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamamoto, T., Vagvolgyi, B., Balaji, K., Whitcomb, L., Okamura, A.M.: Tissue property estimation and graphical display for teleoperated robot-assisted surgery. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 12–17. IEEE, Kobe International Conference Center—Japan (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, J.: Powerful goodness-of-fit tests based on the likelihood ratio. J. Royal Stat. Soc.: Series B (Stat. Methodol.) 64(2), 281–294 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Courreges
    • 1
  • M. A. Laribi
    • 3
  • M. Arsicault
    • 2
  • S. Zeghloul
    • 3
  1. 1.Team Mechatronics, XLIM InstituteCNRS UMR, University of Limoges 7252LimogesFrance
  2. 2.GMSC Department, PPRIME InstituteCNRS UPR3346 - University of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  3. 3.Institut PPRIME, UPR 3346University of PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations