Bilateral Teleoperation in the Presence of Jitter: Communication Performance Evaluation and Control

  • Piroska HallerEmail author
  • Lőrinc Márton
  • Zoltán Szántó
  • Tamás Vajda
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 42)


In this study the influence of the communication channels with time varying delays on the networked robot control systems is treated. The first part of the work focuses on communication performance evaluation of such applications that are developed to support bilateral teleoperation over wireless local area networks. Detailed experimental investigations are performed to analyze the communication performances in wireless teleoperation systems. It is shown that the jitter is a good indicator of the communication performances in wireless networked control systems. In the second part of the work it is shown that in the presence of large communication delay variation (jitter) the transparency of the teleoperation is compromised. To handle this problem an extended teleoperation controller was proposed which assures better performances in the presence of jitter. Control experiments are presented to validate the theoretical results.


Packet Loss Medium Access Control Distribute Coordination Function Haptic Device Communication Delay 
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.



The research work of the first author was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS - UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0005.


  1. Aceto G, Botta A, Pescapé A, D’Arienzo M (2012) Unified architecture for network measurement: the case of available bandwidth. J Netw Comput Appl 35(5):1402–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chopra N, Berestesky P, Spong M (2008) Bilateral teleoperation over unreliable communication networks. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 16(2):304–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ferre M, Buss M, Aracil R, Melchiorri C, Balaguer C (eds) (2007) Advances in telerobotics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Gokhale V, Dabeer O, Chaudhuri S (2013) HoIP: Haptics over internet protocol. In: IEEE International symposium on haptic audio visual environments and games, pp 45–50Google Scholar
  5. Hokajem PF, Spong MW (2006) Bilateral teleoperation: an historical survey. Automatica 42:2025–2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang YC, Chu CH, Wu EHK (2011) A novel congestion control mechanism on TFRC for streaming applications over wired-wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM workshop on wireless multimedia networking and computing, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  7. IEEE (2009) P802.11n/d3.00 – Draft standard for information technology-telecommunications and information exchange between systems–local and metropolitan area networks – Specific requirements – Part 11: wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications: Amendment 4: Enhancements for higher throughput. StandardGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim YS, Ryu JH (2009) Performance analysis of teleoperation systems with different haptic and video time-delay. In: Proceedings of the ICROS-SICE international joint conference, Japan, pp 3371–2275Google Scholar
  9. Kim KH, Nam H, Park JH, Schulzrinne H (2014) MoT: a collaborative network troubleshooting platform for the internet of things. In: IEEE wireless communications and networking conference, pp 3438–3443Google Scholar
  10. King H, Hannaford B, Kwok KW, Yang GZ, Griffiths P, Okamura A, Farkhatdinov I, Ryu JH, Sankaranarayanan G, Arikatla V, Tadano K, Kawashima K, Peer A, Schauss T, Buss M, Miller L, Glozman D, Rosen J, Low T (2010) Plugfest 2009: global interoperability in telerobotics and telemedicine. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 1733–1738Google Scholar
  11. Kokkonis G, Psannis K, Roumeliotis M, Kontogiannis S, Ishibashi Y (2012) Evaluating transport and application layer protocols for haptic applications. In: 2012 IEEE international workshop on haptic audio visual environments and games, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  12. Latecki LJ, Jin T, Mulik J (2004) A two-stream approach for priority management and adaptive rate control in multimedia applications. J Internet Technol 5(4):331–340Google Scholar
  13. Lee D, Spong MW (2006) Passive bilateral teleoperation with constant time delay. IEEE Trans Robot 22(2):269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee S, Kim J, Ishibashi Y (2010) Transparency improvement of force-reflecting teleoperation over time-varying network delays. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo, pp 1010–1015Google Scholar
  15. Marton L, Szanto Z, Vajda T, Haller P, Haller H, Szabo T, Tamas L (2014) Communication delay and jitter influence on bilateral teleoperation. In: Proceedings of the of 22nd Mediterranean conference on control and automation, Palermo, Italy, pp 1171–1177Google Scholar
  16. Namerikawa T (2009) Bilateral control with constant feedback gains for teleoperation with time varying delay. In: Proceedings of the 48th IEEE conference on decision and control, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  17. Niemeyer G, Slotine JJ (1991) Stable adaptive teleoperation. IEEE J Ocean Eng 16(1):152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nuno E, Ortega R, Barabanov N, Basanez L (2008) A globally stable PD controller for bilateral teleoperators. IEEE Trans Robot 24(3):753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nuno E, Basanez L, Lopez-Francoa C, Arana-Daniela N (2014) Stability of nonlinear teleoperators using PD controllers without velocity measurements. J Frankl Inst 351(1):241–258CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Polushin I, Liu P, Lung CH (2007) A force-reflection algorithm for improved transparency in bilateral teleoperation with communication delay. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 12(3):361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryu JH, Kwon DS, Hannaford B (2004) Stable teleoperation with time-domain passivity control. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 20(2):365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ryu JH, Artigas J, Preusche C (2010) A passive bilateral control scheme for a teleoperator with time-varying communication delay. Mechatronics 20:812–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Song A, Wang S, Zhao H, Wei J, Lai M (2011) An accurate delay model with consideration of coupled queues effect for nonsaturated IEEE 802.11 wireless networks. IJIPM: Int J Inf Process Manage 2(3):52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suzuki N, Katsura S (2011) Investigation of transport layer protocols for wireless haptic communication system. In: Proceedings of. the IEEE/SICE international symposium on system integration, Kyoto, Japan, pp 509–514Google Scholar
  25. Wirz R, Marin R, Claver JM, Ferre M, Aracil R, Fernandez J (2008) End-to-end congestion control protocols for remote programming of robots, using heterogeneous networks: a comparative analysis. Robot Autonom Syst 56(10):865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yap KM, Lee TH (2012) Performance evaluation of wireless networks for supporting real time collaborative interactions in distributed haptic virtual environments. Onlinepresentorg 7:194–201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piroska Haller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lőrinc Márton
    • 2
  • Zoltán Szántó
    • 2
  • Tamás Vajda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Informatics‘Petru Maior’ UniversityTargu MuresRomania
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringSapientia Hungarian University of TransylvaniaTargu MuresRomania

Personalised recommendations