Stability Analysis of Haptic Virtual Environment Systems for Active Interactions in Surgical Robot Simulators

Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


A haptic interface is a link between a human operator and a virtual environment and conveys a kinesthetic sense of presence in the virtual environment to the operator. The combined system includes a virtual environment simulated in a digital computer, a human operator and a haptic display that are actual physical systems. Such interfaces are commonly used in tele-surgical simulators and other systems to get a better feel for the user. For this system, stability is a prime concern because it may be affected by three major factors that are communication delay, controller discretization, and active operator intervention. In this paper, the stability of these systems is analysed and a framework which allows operator to interact actively with the virtual environment is proposed for telesurgical applications using surgical robots. Study of the simultaneous effect of all three de-stabilizing factors are carried out via the proposed framework. The well-known Colgate’s stability condition for a 1-user haptic system with a passive operator is reproduced and then extended to the case which allows each operator to behave actively. Another extension to Colgate’s condition comes by allowing communication delays to exist in the system. Simulations confirm the validity of the proposed conditions for stability of sampled-data Haptic Virtual Environment (HVE) systems.


Virtual Environment Haptic Feedback Haptic Device Slave System Haptic Interface 


  1. Artigas, J., Preusche, C., Hirzinger, G., Borghesan, G., & Melchiorri, C. (2008). Bilateral energy transfer in delayed teleoperation on the time domain. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, CA, USA (pp. 671–676).Google Scholar
  2. Colgate, J., & Schenkel, G. (1997). Passivity of a class of sampled data systems: Application to haptic interfaces. Journal of Robotic Systems, 14(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dyck, M., Jazayeri, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). Is the human operator in a teleoperation system passive? In Proceedings of IEEE World Haptics Conference, Daejeon, Korea (pp. 683–688).Google Scholar
  4. Fotoohi, M., Sirouspour, S., & Capson, D. (2007). A multi-rate control approach to haptic interaction in multi-user virtual environments. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, Italy (pp. 99–104).Google Scholar
  5. Gil, J., Avello, A., Rubio, A., & Florez, J. (2004). Stability analysis of a 1-DoF haptic interface using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(4), 583–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glencross, M., Jay, C., Feasel, J., Kohli, L., Whitton, M., & Hubbold, R. (2007). Effective cooperative haptic interaction over the internet. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, Charlotte, NC, USA (pp. 115–122).Google Scholar
  7. Goncharenko, I., Svinin, M., Matsumoto, S., Masui, Y., Kanou, Y., & Hosoe, S. (2004). Cooperative control with haptic visualization in shared virtual environments. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Visualization, London, UK (pp. 533–538).Google Scholar
  8. Haidegger, T., et al. (2009). Force Sensing and Force Control for Surgical Robots. In Proceedings of the 7th IFAC Symposium on Modelling and Control in Biomedical Systems.(pp. 413–418). Denmark: IFAC.Google Scholar
  9. Hannaford, B., & Ry, J. H. (2002). Time-domain passivity control of haptic interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 18(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishii, C., et al. (2010). Robotic Forceps Manipulator with a Novel Bending Mechanism. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 5(15), 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jazayeri, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). A passivity criterion for sampled data bilateral teleoperation systems. In Proceedings of IEEE World Haptics Conference, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 487–492).Google Scholar
  12. Leung, G., & Francis, B. (1992). Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay through a digital communication channel. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, Urbana, IL, USA(pp. 692–701).Google Scholar
  13. Lum Mitchell, J. H., et al. (2009). The RAVEN: design and validation of a telesurgical system. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 28, 1183–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Minsky, M. Ming, O.-Y., Steele, O., Brooks, Jr., F. P., & Behensky, M. (1990). Feeling and seeing: Issues in force display. In Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, New York, NY, USA (pp. 235–241).Google Scholar
  15. Orozco, M., Silva, A. P. E., & El Saddik, J. (2012). The role of haptics in games. Haptics Rendering and Application, 2, 1221–1226.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, W. H. (2010). Laparoscopic and robotic myoectomy. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robotics Laboratory, Department of Engineering DesignIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations