Advertisement

Power Scaling in Port-Hamiltonian Telemanipulation over Packet Switched Networks

  • Cristian Secchi
  • Stefano Stramigioli
  • Cesare Fantuzzi
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 31)

Summary

In several important applications involving bilateral telemanipulation systems (e.g. macro-micro teleoperation, telesurgery) master and slave act at different power scales. In this contribution, we illustrate how to embed power scaling into port- Hamiltonian based telemanipulation schemes over packet switched networks. We propose a discrete scattering based communication strategy to scale the power exchanged between master and slave sides and a way to handle lost packets that allow to get power scaling while preserving a stable behavior of the system independently of any communication delay and of any possible loss of packets.

Keywords

Packet Loss Communication Channel Stable Behavior Communication Delay Dirac Structure 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R.J. Anderson and M.W. Spong. Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 34(5):494–501, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Niemeyer and J.-J. Slotine. Stable adaptive teleoperation. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 16(1):152–162, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Stramigioli, A.J. van der Schaft, B. Maschke, and C. Melchiorri. Geometric scattering in robotic telemanipulation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 18(4), 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.J. van der Schaft. L 2 -Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control. Communication and Control Engineering. Springer Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Stramigioli. Modeling and IPC Control of Interactive Mechanical Systems: a coordinate free approach. LNCIS. Springer, London, 2001.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Secchi, S. Stramigioli, and C. Fantuzzi. Digital passive geometric telemanipulation. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Stramigioli, C. Secchi, A.J. van der Schaft, and C. Fantuzzi. Sampled data systems passivity and discrete port-hamiltonian systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 21(4):574–587, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Stramigioli, C. Secchi, A.J. van der Schaft, and C. Fantuzzi. A novel theory for sample data system passivity. In Proceedings to IEEE Conference on Intelligent Robotic Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Arcara and C. Melchiorri. Control schemes for teleoperation with time delay: a comparative study. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 38(1), 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.E. Speich and M. Goldfarb. Implementation of loop-shaping compensators to increase the transparency bandwidth of a scaled telemanipulation system. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, DC, USA, May 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Boukhnifer, A. Ferreira, and J.-G. Fontaine. Scaled teleoperation controller design for micromanipulation over internet. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA, April 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Itoh, K. Kosuge, and T. Fukuda. Human-machine cooperative telemanipulation with motion and force scaling using task-oriented virtual tool dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 16(5), 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Lee and P.I. Li. Passive bilateral feedforward control of linear dynamically similar teleoperated manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.J. Anderson and M.W. Spong. Asymptotic stability for force reflecting teleoperators with time delays. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.E. Colgate. Power and impedance scaling in bilateral manipulation. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, California, April 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Ortega, M. Perez, and J. Espinoza. Passivity-based PI control of switched power converters. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(4), July 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Batlle, A. Doria, and R. Ortega. Power flow control of a doubly-fed induction machine coupled to a flywheel. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Control Applications, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.C. Karnopp, D.L. Margolis, and R.C. Rosenberg. System Dynamics: A Unified Approach. John Wiley & Sons Inc., second edition, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.M. Murray, Z. Li, and S.S. Sastry. A mathematical introduction to robotic manipulation. CRC press, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.M. Selig. Geometric Methods in Robotics. Monographs in Computer Sciences. Springer Verlag, 1996. ISBN 0-387-94728-0.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Secchi, S. Stramigioli, and C. Fantuzzi. Control of Interactive Roboti Interfaces: a port-Hamiltonian Approach. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Secchi
    • 1
  • Stefano Stramigioli
    • 2
  • Cesare Fantuzzi
    • 1
  1. 1.DISMIUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  2. 2.EEMCSUniversity of TwenteEnschede

Personalised recommendations