Compliance/Impedance Control Strategy for Humanoids

Living reference work entry

Abstract

Compliance/impedance control is an important control method in dealing with uncertainties. This chapter explains how compliance/impedance control can be used in humanoid robots in adapting to ground uncertainties. First, compliance/impedance control is explained in the general context of robotics. Then, typical structures for controllers for impedance control and admittance control are also explained. What is impedance for a humanoid robot in locomotion and running is defined and how impedance control, as a superset of compliance control, is applied as it is described. The legs of a humanoid robot in locomotion and running go through many different phases. A human in locomotion and running changes the tension of his/her leg muscles. In order to deal with many different phases of the legs, it is critical to modulate the impedance parameters depending on the phases, as a human does in his or her locomotion and running. This chapter also describes how the impedance parameters can be modulated in control for a humanoid robot for successful locomotion and running.

Keywords

Impedance Compliance Admittance Swing phase Weight acceptance phase Flight phase 

References

  1. 1.
    F. Caccavale, C. Natale, B. Siciliano, L. Villani, Six-DOF impedance control based on angle/axis representations. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15(2), 289–299 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Cavagna, M. Kaneko, Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running. J. Physiol. 268(2), 467–481 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Cavagna, H. Thys, A. Zamboni, The sources of external work in level walking and running. J. Physiol. 262(3), 639–657 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Chiaverini, B. Siciliano, L. Villani, A survey of robot interaction control schemes with experimental comparison. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 4(3), 273–285 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Duffy, The fallacy of modern hybrid control theory that is based on orthogonal complements of twist and wrench spaces. J. Robot. Syst. 7(2), 139–144 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.D. Fasse, On the spatial compliance of robotic manipulators. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 119(1), 839–844 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.D. Fasse, J.F. Broenink, A spatial impedance controller for robotic manipulation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 13(4), 546–556 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.D. Fasse, N. Hogan, Control of physical contact and dynamic interaction, in Proceedings of International Symposium of Robotics Research, 1995, pp. 28–38Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Hartshorne, Interaction Control of Robot Manipulators: Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Tasks. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (STAR), vol. 3 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Hogan, Impedance control: an approach to manipulation, part I – theory. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107(1), 1–7 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Hogan, Impedance control: an approach to manipulation, part II – implementation. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107(1), 8–16 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Hogan, Impedance control: an approach to manipulation, part III – applications. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107(1), 17–24 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Khatib, A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: the operational space formulation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 3(1), 1115–1120 (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Kwon, J.H. Park, Asymmetric trajectory generation and impedance control for running of biped robots. Auton. Robot. 26(1), 47–78 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.A. Lawrence, Impedance control stability properties in common implementations, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1998, pp. 1185–1190Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Lipkin, J. Duffy, Hybrid twist and wrench control for a robotic manipulator. ASME J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des. 110(1), 138–144 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Mason, Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 11(6), 418–432 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.H. Park, Impedance control for biped robot locomotion. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17(6), 870–882 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.H. Park, H. Chung, Hybrid control for biped robots using impedance control and computed-torque control, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1999, pp. 1365–1370Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.H. Raibert, J.J. Craig, Hybrid position/force control of manipulators. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 105(1), 126–133 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Stramigioli, Modeling and IPC Control of Interactive Mechanical Systems: A Coordinate-Free Approach. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 266 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Stramigioli, V. Duindam, Variable spatial springs for robot control applications, in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2001, pp. 1906–1911Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Thorstensson, H. Roberthson, Adaptations to changing speed in human locomotion: speed of transition between walking and running. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 131(2), 211–214 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Valency, M. Zacksenhouse, Accuracy/robustness dilemma in impedance control. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 125(1), 310–319 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D.A. Winter, Overall principle of lower limb support during stance phase of gait. J. Biomech. 13(1), 123–127 (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechatronics Lab, School of Mechanical EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations