Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Control With Applications in Telesurgery and Telerehabilitation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/303847597
Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Control with Applications in

Telesurgery and Telerehabilitation
Article in Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/1.4033775
CITATIONS READS
18 1,241
3 authors, including:
Mojtaba Sharifi Saeed Behzadipour

University of Alberta Sharif University of Technology
52 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 1,044 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Optimum Design of Mechanical Systems View project
Laparoscopy Simulation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mojtaba Sharifi on 18 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance

Control with Applications in Telesurgery
and Telerehabilitation
Mojtaba Sharifi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology
Azadi St., P.O. Box: 11155-9567, Tehran, Iran
mojtaba_sharifi@mech.sharif.edu
Saeed Behzadipour 1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Djawad Movaffaghian Research Center in Neuro-Rehab Technologies,
Sharif University of Technology
behzadipour@sharif.edu
Hassan Salarieh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology
salarieh@sharif.edu
ABSTRACT
A bilateral nonlinear adaptive impedance controller is proposed for the control of multi-DOF teleoperation
systems. In this controller, instead of conventional position and/or force tracking, the impedance of the
nonlinear teleoperation system is controlled. The controller provides asymptotic tracking of two
impedance models in Cartesian coordinates for the master and slave robots. The proposed bilateral
controller can be used in different medical applications such as tele-surgery and tele-rehabilitation where
the impedance of the robot in interaction with human subject is of great importance. The parameters of
the two impedance models can be adjusted according to the application and corresponding objectives and
requirements. The dynamic uncertainties are considered in the model of the master and slave robots. The
stability and the tracking performance of the system are proved via a Lyapunov analysis. Moreover, the
1
Corresponding author.
1
adaptation laws are proposed in the joint space for reducing the computational complexity however the
controller and the stability proof are all presented in Cartesian coordinates. Using simulations on a two
DOFs robots, the effectiveness of the proposed controller is investigated in telesurgery and
telerehabilitation operations.
1. INTRODUCTION
Teleoperation systems enable human to interact with environments that are too
inaccessible, too confined, or too hazardous. They have been widely used in different
areas such as minimally invasive tele-surgery [1], tele-rehabilitation [2, 3] and tele-
sonography [4] systems, nuclear waste site and radioactive material management [5],
outer space and undersea exploration [6, 7], and construction/forestry machines of the
excavator type [8].
As shown in Fig. 1, a teleoperation system consists of a user-interface (master)
robot, a tele-operated (slave) robot, a human operator, an environment, and
communication channels. Teleoperation performance is greatly improved when the
haptic force feedback of the interaction point between the slave robot and the remote
environment is provided to the human operator using the master robot. The control
strategy of these systems is called bilateral as the information flows in two directions
between the operator and the remote environment [9]. In the bilateral teleoperation
robotic systems, the human operator applies force ( f h ) on the master robot to control
the position of the slave robot ( x s ) in order to perform a task in the remote
environment. If the slave robot perfectly tracks the master robot’s position trajectory
2
( xm ) and the master robot ideally realizes the slave-environment contact force ( f e ) to
the human operator, the system is called transparent.
Various control strategies have been proposed for linear teleoperation systems
(with one-DOF) [10-17]. Among them, the 4- channel architecture is the most successful
in terms of fulfilling transparency [12, 13]. However, this control scheme assumes
perfect knowledge of the linear dynamics of the master and the slave robots. In other
words, these controllers need the exact model of the robots dynamics that may be
unavailable in a realistic system due to uncertainties. Therefore, the stability and
transparency are hard to guarantee in practice. A few adaptive controllers [18, 19] have
been presented in the literature for linear master and slave models where the slave and
the environment dynamics are considered to be uncertain.
Moreover, to do complex tasks in multi-directional space, multi-DOF nonlinear
systems are required instead of one-DOF linear ones. Accordingly, designing a nonlinear
bilateral controller for uncertain nonlinear teleoperation systems is a desired objective
for researchers in recent years. However, the control for master and slave robots with
nonlinear models is more challenging in comparison with those with linear models. In
this context, some adaptive controllers [20, 21] were proposed for nonlinear master and
slave dynamics by considering linear operator and environment dynamics instead of
sensing their interaction forces applied to the system. On the other hand, there are
some works on the synchronization of positions and velocities of the master and slave
robots using PD [22] and adaptive [23] controllers considering a time delay in the
communication channel. In these controllers [22, 23], the objective is state
3
synchronization that is achieved in the absence of external force (the case of free
motion), and the simultaneous position and force tracking performances cannot be
provided. To achieve the position and force tracking performances for multi-DOF
systems, Ryu and Kwon [24] and Hung et al. [25] designed two nonlinear adaptive
controllers. As a modification on one of these controllers [24], Liu and Tavakoli [26, 27]
developed two nonlinear adaptive 4-channel controllers. In the last mentioned adaptive
controllers [26, 27] with position and force tracking objectives, the acceleration of each
robot in addition to the velocity and position signals should be measured and used in
the control law of the other robot.
In this paper, we developed a new bilateral nonlinear adaptive impedance
controller instead of previously mentioned bilateral position, force or combined
position-force controllers. Therefore, the corresponding background and literature of
the impedance/admittance control is briefly mentioned. The impedance/admittance
control has recently found an important role in different physical human-robot
interactions such as robot assisted rehabilitation and haptic systems. In this context, a
virtual impedance/admittance model, that is the desired virtual dynamical relationship
between the motion and the external forces or moments acting on the system, is
realized. Many interactive tasks that could not be handled well by pure position or force
control can be realized by impedance/admittance control theory [28-30].
According to the early innovative works on impedance and compliance control
[31, 32], many contributions were presented in this area, including robust impedance
control [33] and hybrid impedance control [34]. In addition, the adaptive impedance
4
control [28-30, 35] approximation-based impedance control [36] and adaptive
admittance control in [37-39] have the advantage of decreasing the need for precise
mathematical modeling of the robot and environment using adaptive control scheme. It
should be noted that the above mentioned works [28-39] on the impedance and/or
admittance control were performed on a single robot manipulator and not for a
teleoperation (telerobotic) system including more than one robot.
There are some works on employing the impedance control context for the
bilateral teleoperation systems. Rubio et al. [40] and Dubey et al. [41] proposed two
control algorithms with varying impedance parameters in order to increase stability and
enhance tracking performance. Love and Book [42] realized a virtual master workspace
with an impedance model, and reduced the operator’s fatigue during a task by
regulating the damping ratio of the impedance model. Moreover, Cho and Park [43]
proposed a bilateral impedance controller for linear (one-DOF) master and slave robots
using a robust control scheme and Garcia-Valdovinos et al. [44] designed an observer for
this controller [43]. In another work, Abbott and Okamura [45] developed impedance
and admittance type bilateral controllers considering an impedance/admittance model
for both master and slave robots that has only a damping element (without mass and
stiffness elements). As a result, the lack of a nonlinear bilateral controller for
implementing a generalized impedance/admittance scheme to uncertain nonlinear
(multi-DOF) teleoperation systems is evident in the literature. Such controller will
definitely require a comprehensive nonlinear stability analysis before it can be
implemented in actual systems.
5
In this paper, a new Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Controller (NBAIC) is
proposed that has the following characteristics and advantages:
1. A general nonlinear form of bilateral impedance control is designed for multi-
DOF teleoperation systems by defining two distinct desired impedance models for the
master and slave robots,
2. Accordingly, instead of two conventional control strategies (position tracking
and force tracking), the impedance/admittance (virtual dynamics) of the teleoperation
system is considered as the control objective,
3. The controller can be used in different applications such as telesurgery and
telerehabilitation by adjusting the target impedance parameters,
4. The proposed controller is robust against dynamic uncertainties of the system,
5. The signals of robots’ acceleration are not used in the controller due to
defining the reference impedance models and controller design. However, in the recent
works [26, 27, 46] on bilateral adaptive control, these signals are required because
direct position and force tracking of nonlinear system are pursued (conventional
bilateral control strategy), and
6. Unlike the previous adaptive bilateral controllers designed in Cartesian
coordinates [26, 27, 46], the adaptation laws are proposed in the joint space for
reducing the computational complexity however the controller and impedance models
are developed in Cartesian coordinates.
It should be noted that the characteristics and applications of this new nonlinear
bilateral adaptive impedance controller are novel in the context of teleoperation
6
systems. In other words, this work is an extension of the adaptive impedance control
methods (such as [28-30, 35, 37, 38]) to bilateral control by realizing two virtual
environments (two impedance models).
The paper is structured as follows: In section 2, the nonlinear model of a multi-
DOF uncertain teleoperation system is presented. In section 3, the bilateral nonlinear
adaptive impedance controller is proposed. The desired impedance models of the
master and slave robots are introduced and discussed in section 3.1. Control laws of the
master and slave robots are designed and presented in section 3.2. In section 3.3, the
closed-loop dynamics of the teleoperation system using the proposed bilateral adaptive
impedance controller is obtained. Moreover, the adaptation laws of the master and
slave robots are described in section 3.4. The stability and convergence of the
teleoperation system are proved in section 3.5 using the Lyapunov theorem. The
simulations of the teleoperation system and controller in telesurgery (Sec. 4.1) and
telerehabilitation (Sec. 4.2) applications are presented and discussed in section 4 to
show the effectiveness of the proposed bilateral control method. Finally, the concluding
remarks are mentioned in section 5.
2. NONLINEAR MODEL OF AN UNCERTAIN TELEOPERATION SYSTEM
The n-DOF master and slave robot manipulators are modeled in the joint space
as follows [47-49]:
M q,m (qm ) qm  Cq,m (qm , qm ) qm  Gq,m (qm )  Fq,m (qm )  τ m  τ h (1)
7
M q,s (qs ) qs  Cq,s (qs , q s ) qs  Gq,s (q s )  Fq,s (q s )  τ s  τe (2)
n1 nn
where q m and qs  are the joint positions, M q,m (qm ) and M q,s (qs )  are the
nn
inertia or mass matrices, Cq,m (qm , qm ) and Cq,s (qs , qs )  includes the Coriolis and
n1
centrifugal terms, Gq,m (qm ) and Gq,s (qs )  are the gravity terms, Fq,m (qm ) and
n1
Fq,s (qs )  are the viscous and coulomb friction terms, and τ m and τ s  n1
are the
vectors of the control torques (originated from the actuators) of the master and the
n1
slave robots, respectively. Also, τh  is the external torque that the operator
n1
applies to the master robot and τe  is the external torque that the environment
applies to the slave robot.
The dynamics of the robots in the Cartesian space is expressed as:
M x,m (qm ) xm  Cx,m (qm , qm ) xm  Gx,m (qm )  Fx,m (qm )  fm  fh (3)
M x,s (qs ) xs  Cx,s (qs , q s ) xs  Gx,s (q s )  Fx,s (q s )  fs  fe (4)
61
where xm and xs  are the Cartesian coordinates of the master and slave robots’
61
end-effectors, respectively. f h and fe  are the external interaction forces that the
operator applies to the master, and the environment applies to the slave, respectively.
Considering the subscript i  m for the master robot and i  s for the slave
robot, the kinematic transformations between the joint and Cartesian spaces are
expressed as:
xi  i (qi ), xi  J i (qi ) qi , xi  J i (qi ) qi  J i (qi ) qi (5)
8
where Ji (qi )   d i (qi ) d qi   6n

is the Jacobian matrix. The relations between the
matrices of dynamic models in the joint space (Eqs. (1) and (2)) and in the Cartesian
space ones (Eqs. (3) and (4)) for non-redundant and non-singular manipulators are:
M x,i (qi )  J i T M q,i (qi ) J i 1
 
Cx,i (qi , qi )  J i T Cq,i (qi , qi )  M q,i (qi ) J i 1 J i J i 1
(6)
Gx,i (qi )  J i T Gq,i (qi ) , Fx,i (qi )  J i T Fq,i (qi )
f i  J i T τ i , f h  J m T τ h , f e  J s T τ e
Using i  m and/or i  s the above relations correspond to master and slave,
respectively. The matrices expressed in dynamic model equations (1) to (4) have the
following properties [48-50]:
Property 1. Inertia matrices M q,i (qi ) and M x,i (qi ) are symmetric and positive definite.
Property 2. Matrices M q,i (qi )  2Cq,i (qi , qi ) and M x,i (qi )  2Cx,i (qi , qi ) are skew symmetric.
Property 3. The left side of Eqs. (1) to (4) can be linearly parameterized in terms of the
model parameters such that:
M q,i (qi ) φ1,i  Cq,i (qi , qi ) φ2,i  Gq,i (qi )  Fq,i (qi )  Yq,i (φ1,i , φ2,i , qi , qi ) αq,i (7)
M x,i (qi ) ψ1,i  Cx,i (qi , qi ) ψ 2,i  Gx,i (qi )  Fx,i (qi )  Yx,i (ψ1,i , ψ 2,i , qi , qi ) αx,i (8)
where α q ,i and α x ,i are the vectors of unknown parameters of the robot when
parameterization is done in the joint space and Cartesian space, respectively. The
regressor matrices Yq ,i and Yx,i contain known functions and φ1,i , φ 2,i , ψ 1,i and ψ 2,i
are the known vectors.
9
3. NONLINEAR BILATERAL ADAPTIVE IMPEDANCE CONTROL
The block diagram representation of the teleoperation system and transmitted
signals in communication channels are shown in Fig. 2. As shown in this figure, the state
variables (position and velocity) and the interaction force signals of the master robot (in
the local site) are transmitted to the slave (remote site) by two communication channels
and the interaction force of the slave robot is transmitted to the master by another
channel of the teleoperation system.
3.1. Impedance Models of the Master and Slave
The desired impedance model of the master robot’s end-effector expresses the
desired dynamical relationship between the human operator and master robot that is
defined in Cartesian space as:
mm xmodm  cm xmodm  km (xmodm  x0 )  fh  kf fe (9)
where xmodm is the response position vector of the master impedance model, and x 0
is the position that corresponds to the natural length of the virtual stiffness element
( k m ). In other words, x 0 is the desired position that the master robot should hold in
the absence of interaction forces (when fh  fe  0 ). As mentioned before, f h is the
interaction force that the operator applies to the master robot and fe is the interaction
force that the environment applies to the slave robot. The force scaling factor kf in Eq.
(9) used for the transmitted interaction force f e from the slave to the master (in the
10
local site). mm , cm and k m are the desired virtual mass, damping, and stiffness
coefficients of the master impedance model, respectively. In order to have different
characteristics in different directions, these three parameters can be defined in matrix
form.
According to Eq. (9), when the master robot reaches its objective of tracking the
master impedance model response ( xmodm ), the operator senses the environment
interaction force ( f e ) and also the desired impedance elements ( mm , cm and k m ). In
other words, the human operator’s perception is that he/she is interacting with the
environment using a virtual tool with desired dynamics mm , cm and k m as shown in
Fig. 3.
It should be mentioned that the master impedance model (9) is constructed and
solved in the local site to obtain the desired trajectory ( xmodm ) of the master robot.
Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 2, the measurement of the interaction force ( fe ) between
the environment and the slave should be transferred from the remote site to the local
site using a communication channel to be used in the master impedance model (9).
The desired impedance model of the slave robot’s end-effector also represents
the desired dynamics between the environment and slave robot during the tracking of
the master robot trajectory:
ms xmods  cs xmods  ks xmods  fe (10)
11
where ms , cs and k s are the desired virtual mass, damping, and stiffness coefficients of
the slave impedance model in physical interaction with environment. Also, x mod s is the
error vector of slave impedance response with respect to the master position that is
defined as:
xmods  xmods  kpxm (11)
where kp is the scaling factor corresponds to the transmitted position and velocity
vectors of the master to the slave. It should be mentioned that the position ( x m ),
velocity ( x m ) and acceleration ( x m ) of master robot are required to obtain the desired
slave impedance model response ( x mod s , x mod s , x mod s ), which will be used in the
bilateral adaptive controller. Since a direct measurement of the master robot
acceleration ( x m ) is challenging, it is estimated with good accuracy when the master
robot mimics its impedance model (9), as:
1 c k
xm est  fh  kf fe   m xm  m (xm  x0 ) (12)
mm mm mm
In Eq. (12), the master robot acceleration is estimated in terms of the interaction forces,
master position and velocity that are available signals according to the master
impedance model (9). Also, when the master robot trajectory ( x m ) asymptotically
converges to the master impedance model response ( x modm ), Eq. (12) has a higher
accuracy in obtaining the master acceleration. Also, the acceleration estimation
12
accuracy can be improved by specifying the same initial position and velocity for the
master robot and its corresponding impedance model (9).
It is known that the slave impedance model (10) is constructed and solved in the
remote site to obtain the desired trajectory ( xmod s ) of slave robot. According to Eq.
(10), the master robot’s position, velocity and acceleration ( x m , x m and x m ) are
required in the slave impedance model. However, using the estimation of master robot
acceleration (12), the measurement of the interaction force ( f h ) between the operator
and master together with the master robot’s position and velocity ( x m and x m ) should
be transferred from the local site to the remote site using two communication channels
(instead of x m , x m and x m ), as shown in Fig. 2.
Due to Eq. (10), by increasing the slave impedance parameters ( ms , cs and
k s ), the tracking error of slave ( xmod ) with respect to master is decreased (the slave
s
becomes more accurate in tracking of the master trajectory). On the other hand, by
decreasing these impedance parameters in (10), the slave becomes more flexible in its
interaction with environment and consequently has higher tracking error ( xmods ).
Accordingly, two impedance models are employed in this methodology. The first
one is the master reference model (9) that the operator perceives, and the second one
is the slave reference model (10) that is the flexibility of the slave robot in its physical
interactions with the environment. These concepts are illustrated in Fig. 4.
The proposed bilateral impedance control strategy approaches an exact position
tracking and/or exact force tracking by adjustment of the parameters in two impedance
13
models (9) and (10). In master impedance model (9), by choosing small values for the
impedance parameters ( mm , cm and k m ), the left side of Eq.(9) is small due to the
boundedness of position signals xmodm and x0 . Accordingly, the right side of Eq. (9)
should also be small ( (fh  kf fe )  0 ); therefore, the force tracking (reflecting)
performance is approximately achieved ( fh  kf fe ). On the other hand, by increasing
the master impedance parameters ( mm , cm and k m ), the force tracking performance
is not obtained and the operator (with f h ) senses the impedance elements ( mm , cm
and k m ) in addition to the scaled environment force ( kf fe ).
Also, due to the boundedness of the right side of Eq. (10) that is fe , the left
side of this equation is also bounded. Consequently, by utilizing large values for the
slave impedance parameters ( ms , cs and k s ) in the left side of Eq. (10), the desired
slave position error with respect to the scaled master trajectory ( xmods  xmods  kp xm )
becomes small. In other words, the position tracking performance ( xmods  kp xm ) is
approximately obtained using large impedance parameters for the slave. On the other
hand, if the parameters of the slave impedance are decreased, the flexibility of the slave
with respect to the master trajectory is increased and the tracking error ( x mod s )
becomes large.
As a result, to have the transparency condition in which position and force
tracking performances are provided ( xmods  kp xm and fh  kf fe ), the master
14
impedance parameters should be decreased (for force reflecting) and the slave
impedance parameters should be increased (for position tracking).
Accordingly, in telesurgery applications in which the slave tracking accuracy is
more important in comparison with the slave flexibility (compliance) in the environment
interactions, the slave impedance parameters ( ms , cs and k s ) should be increased as
much as needed. Also, in telerehabilitation and telesonography applications for which
the slave robot should have higher compliance in its interaction with the patient
(environment), the slave impedance parameters should be decreased. In other words, in
telerehabilitation systems that the slave robot moves the patient limbs with a limited
flexibility, the patient is permitted to deviate from the initially designed (master)
trajectory using the slave impedance model (10). This performance is approximately
required in telesonography systems where the slave robot should show a flexible
interaction with the patient tissue or limb.
3.2. Nonlinear Control Laws of the Master and Slave Robots
The general structure of the proposed bilateral impedance controller is shown in
Fig. 5 and their details are given in this section. As mentioned earlier, there are two
impedance models (9) and (10) that their responses are tracked by adaptive controllers
of master and slave robots. The dynamic models of master and slave robots are
considered to have fully parametric uncertainties. Also, modeling the human operator
and the remote environment is not required because their interaction forces ( f h , f e )
applied to robots are directly measured using force/torque sensor.
15
Now, the adaptive control laws designed for the master and slave robots are
presented. For this purpose, the sliding surfaces used in the bilateral controller are
defined for the master and slave robots as:
Sm  xm  1,m xm , S s  xs  1,s xs (13)
where xm  x m  x modm and x s  x s  x mods are the vectors of the master and slave position
error with respect to the responses of their impedance models (9) and (10). 1,m and
1,s are positive constant parameters that guarantee the stability of the sliding surfaces
(13). Now, we introduce the master and slave reference velocities as additional
variables:
xr,m  xmodm  1,mxm , xr,s  xmods  1,s xs (14)
The sliding surfaces can be reformulated as:
Sm  xm  xr,m , Ss  xs  xr,s (15)
Also, the master and slave reference accelerations are obtained from Eq. (14) as:
xr,m  xmodm  1,mxm , xr,s  xmods  1,s xs (16)
where xmodm is obtained from master impedance model (9). Also, due to Eq. (11),
xmods  xmods  kp xm where xmods is obtained from the slave impedance model (10).
However, the exact master acceleration xm is not available and it is estimated by xm est
in Eq. (12). This acceleration estimation may has an error as xm  xm est  xm which is
rationally assumed to be bounded. Thus, the estimated variable of
16
xmods  xmod  kp xm est should be used instead of its real value xmod in Eq. (16) to
est s s
obtain the estimated slave reference acceleration as:

xr,s est  xmods  1,s xs  xmods  kp xm est  1,s xs
est
 (17)
which can be reformulated in terms of estimation error of master acceleration ( xm )
and the exact slave reference acceleration ( xr ,s in Eq. (16)) as:
xr ,s est  xmods   kp xm  kp xm   1,s x s  xmods  kp xm  1,s x s

(18)
 xr ,s  kp xm
Now, the nonlinear adaptive control laws of the master and slave robots for
tracking their impedance models are defined in Cartesian coordinates, respectively, as:
fm  Mˆ x,m (q m )  xr ,m  2,m S m   Cˆ x,m (q m , q m ) xr ,m

(19)
 Gˆ x,m (q m )  Fˆx,m (q m )  fh
 
f s  Mˆ x,s (q s ) xr ,s est  2,s S s  Cˆ x ,s (q s , q s ) xr ,s
(20)
 Gˆ x, s (q s )  Fˆx,s (q s )  fe   s sgn(S s )
Accent  denotes the estimated values of matrices, vectors and scalars. 2,m and 2,s
are two positive constants that guarantee the stability and convergence of the
teleoperation system, which will be determined using the Lyapunov theorem.  s in the
control law of the slave robot (20) is a positive constant parameter, and it will be shown
that  s sgn(Ss ) provides the robustness of the bilateral controller against the bounded
estimation error of the master robot’s acceleration ( xm ).
17
The actual control input of robots applied in the joint space by motor torques is
obtained using Eq. (6) in (19) and (20), as:
τm  J T
M  2, m 
ˆ (q ) xr ,m   Sm  Cˆ x,m (qm , qm ) xr ,m 
 x,m m  (21)
m
 Gˆ (q )  Fˆ (q )  f 
 x,m m x ,m m h 
τs  Js T
 Mˆ (q ) x
 x, s s   ˆ 
r , s est  2, s S s  Cx, s (q s , q s ) xr , s 
(22)
 ˆ ˆ 
 Gx,s (q s )  Fx,s (q s )  fe   s sgn(S s ) 
With the purpose of employing parameterization in the joint space, the master and
slave input torques ( τ m and τ s ) are expressed in terms of joint space matrices and
vectors using Eq. (6) as:
τ m  Mˆ q,m J m 1  xr ,m  2,m S m 
 
(23)
 Cˆq,m  Mˆ q,m J m 1 J m J m 1 xr ,m  Gˆ q,m  Fˆq,m  J mT f h

τ s  Mˆ q , s J s 1 xr ,s est  2,s S s 
 
(24)
 Cˆq, s  Mˆ q, s J s 1 J s J s 1 xr ,s  Gˆ q,s  Fˆq,s  J sT fe  J sT  s sgn(S s )
The above relations for the motor input torques can be written as:
τ m  Mˆ q,m v1,m  Cˆq,m v2,m  Gˆq,m  Fˆq,m  J mT fh (25)
τ s  Mˆ q,s v1,s  Cˆq,s v2,s  Gˆq,s  Fˆq,s  J sT fe  J sT  s sgn(Ss ) (26)
18
where v1,m , v2,m , v1,s and v2,s are known vectors and do not contain any estimated
parameters of the system’ dynamics. These vectors are obtained for the master and
slave robots as follow:
v1,m  J m1  xr,m  2,m Sm   J m1J m J m1xr,m , v2,m  J m1 xr,m (27)
 
v1,s  J s 1 xr,s est  2,s Ss  J s 1J s J s 1xr,s , v2,s  J s 1 xr,s (28)
According to Property 3, the adaptive control laws of teleoperation system in the
joint space (Eqs. (25) and (26)) are linearly parameterized as:
τ m  Yq,m αˆ q,m  J mT fh (29)
τ s  Yq,s αˆ q,s  J sT fe  J sT  s sgn(Ss ) (30)
where Yq,m αˆ q,m and Yq, s αˆ q, s are linear parameterizations of the first four terms of Eq.
(25) and (26), respectively. Also, α q ,m and α q ,s are the vectors of actual parameters of
the master and slave robots, respectively, and αˆ q ,m and αˆ q , s are their estimations. Yq,m
and Yq,s are the joint space regressor matrices for the master and slave robots,
respectively. As a result, the linear parameterization for each robot is expressed as:
Yq,i αq,i  M q,i v1,i  Cq,i v2,i  Gq,i  Fq,i (31)
where v1,i and v2,i were obtained in Eqs. (27) and (28) (using i  m and i  s the above
relation is defined for the master and the slave, respectively).
19
3.3. The Closed-loop Dynamics of the Teleoperation System
In this section, the closed-loop dynamics of the master and slave robots using
the proposed bilateral adaptive impedance controller is obtained. For this purpose, the
control laws (19) and (20) are replaced in the teleoperation system dynamics (3) and (4)
that yields:
M x ,m  x m  xr ,m    2,m M x ,m S m

 Mˆ x ,m  M x ,m x r ,m  2,m S m 
  Cˆ 
(32)
x ,m  Cx , m x r , m  Cx , m S m
  Gˆx ,m  Gx ,m    Fˆ x ,m  Fx ,m 
 
M x , s x s  xr , s est   2, s M x , s S s

 Mˆ x, s  M x, s x r ,s  2, s S s 
  Cˆ 
(33)
x,s  Cx , s x r , s  C x , s S s
  Gˆx,s  Gx, s    Fˆ x,s 

 Fx, s   s sgn(S s )
According to Property 3 and using Eqs. (27), (28) and (31), the above equations can be
rewritten as:
M x,m  xm  xr ,m    2,m M x,m Sm  Cx,mSm  J m T Yq,m αq,m (34)
 
M x,s x s  xr ,s est   2,s M x,s S s  Cx,sS s  J s T Yq,s αq,s   s sgn(Ss ) (35)
20
where αq,m  αˆ q,m  αq,m and αq,s  αˆ q,s  αq,s are the error vectors of master and slave
parameter estimations, respectively. Using Eq. (18) for the estimated value of the slave
reference acceleration ( xr ,s est ) in Eq. (35), yields to:
M x,s  xs  xr ,s   kp M x,s xm   2,s M x,s Ss  Cx,sSs  J s T Yq,s αq,s   s sgn(Ss ) (36)
where xm  xm est  xm is the bounded estimation error of master acceleration.
Substituting the time derivative of Eq. (15) in Eqs. (34) and (36) yields the final error
dynamics or closed-loop dynamics of the teleoperation system:
M x,m Sm   2,m M x,m Sm  Cx,mSm  J m T Yq,m αq,m (37)
M x,s Ss   2,s M x,s Ss  Cx,s Ss  J s T Yq,s αq,s  kp M x,s xm   s sgn(Ss ) (38)
3.4. Composite Adaptation Laws
A kind of composite adaptation with a bounded forgetting gain is used in the
proposed bilateral controller, in which the estimation error ( ei ) is used in addition to
the tracking error ( S i ).
Now, the estimation error for each of the master and slave robots is defined. The
master or slave robot dynamics equation in the joint space is expressed as follows:
M q,i (qi ) qi  Cq,i (qi , qi ) qi  Gq,i (qi )  Fq,i (qi )  τq,i (39)
21
where in this paper, for the master: i  m and τq,m  τ m  τ h , and also for the slave:
i  s and τq,s  τ s  τ e . Then, the above dynamics passes through a first-order filter
that has the following Laplace form:

W ( s)  (40)
s
where w(t )   e  t is its impulse response in time domain. Both sides of Eq. (39) are
convolved by w(t ) to have:
w(t  r )  M q,i qi  Cq,i qi  Gq,i  Fq,i  dr   w(t  r ) τq,i (r ) dr

t t
0 0
(41)
The first term in the left side of (41) is obtained using the partial integration, as:
t
 w(t  r )  M
0 q ,i qi  dr 
t d
w(t  r ) M q ,i qi 0    w(t  r ) M q ,i  qi dr 
t
0 dr  (42)
t
w(0) M q ,i qi  w(t ) M q ,i (qi (0))qi (0)    w(t  r ) M q ,i qi  w(t  r ) M q ,i qi dr
0
As a result, the left side of Eq. (41) is obtained as:
Wq,i (qi , qi ) αq,i  y i (t ) (43)
where Wq,i is the filtered version of Yq ,i in Eq. (7) with φ1,i  qi and φ2,i  qi .
Moreover, due to the filtering and partial integration (42), the elements of matrix Wq,i
are only functions of the available measurements of q i and q i , and the acceleration
22
( q i ) is not required. Also, Eq. (43) is the linear parameterization of the filtered dynamics
(41), and yi (t ) is the filtered torque defined as:
t
 w(t  r ) τ
0 q ,i (r ) dr  y i (t ) (44)
Equation (43) can be written for αˆ q,i (the estimated value of α q,i ) as:
Wq,i (qi , qi ) αˆ q,i  yˆ i (t ) (45)
Then, the estimation error ( ei ) for each robot is defined as:
ei  yˆ i (t )  yi (t ) (46)
Consequently, the estimation error can be rewritten in terms of the parameter
estimation error as:
ei  Wq,i (qi , qi ) αq,i (47)
Now, the bounded gain forgetting (BGF) composite adaptation laws of master
and slave are defined as:
αˆ q,m   Pm (t )T Yq,mT J m 1Sm  Wq,mT Rm em  (48)
αˆ q,s   Ps (t )T Yq,sT J s 1Ss  Wq,sT Rs es  (49)
where Ri  nn
(for master i  m or slave i  s ) is a positive definite weighting matrix
that indicates the cost of estimation error ei (having the parameters information) in the
adaptation law. For simplicity, Ri is chosen as:
23
Ri  ai I nn (50)
where I nn is the unity matrix with the same dimensions as Ri , and ai is a positive
constant. Also, Pi (t ) in (48) and (49) is the adaptation gain that is a uniformly positive
definite matrix determined by an exponentially forgetting least-squares update rule as:
d 1
Pi (t )   i (t ) Pi 1  Wq ,iTWq,i (51)
dt
that has the following variable forgetting factor:
i (t )  0,i 1  Pi k0,i  (52)
where 0,i and k0,i are two positive constants specifying the maximum forgetting rate
and the upper bound of the gain matrix norm ( Pi ), respectively. The gain update rule
(51) guarantees that  t  0 , i (t )  0 , and Pi (t )  k0,i I for any signal of Wi [49].
Moreover, if Wi is positive definite (persistently excited),  1,i  0 such that  t  0 ,
i (t )  1,i [49].
It should be mentioned that Eqs. (48) and (49) express the adaptation laws in
joint space to reduce the complexity of calculations; however the closed-loop dynamics
and the control laws are presented in Cartesian coordinates.
In the following Lyapunov stability proof, it will be shown that the tracking error
converges to zero independent from persistent excitation condition in parameter
estimation.
24
3.5. Proof of Lyapunov Stability and Tracking Convergence
A Lyapunov function candidate in terms of tracking errors ( S m and S s ) and
parameter estimation errors ( α q ,m and α q ,s ) is used to prove the stability and
convergence of the teleoperation system:
V
2

1 T
Sm M x,m S m  STs M x,s S s  αqT,m Pm (t )1 αq,m  αqT, s Ps (t )1 αq, s  (53)
The Lyapunov function terms are proposed in two different coordinates, the first two
terms (tracking errors) are in Cartesian coordinates while the last two terms
(parameters estimation errors) correspond to the joint space parameterization. This is
because the adaptation laws are given in joint space to reduce the complexity of their
calculations in comparison with previous works [26, 27, 46] that present the adaptation
law in Cartesian space. Since the inertia matrix M x ,i and the adaptation gain matrix Pi
are uniformly positive definite, the Lyapunov function is positive definite ( V  0 ). The
time derivative of V is found as:
 1   1 
V  STm  M x ,m S m  M x ,m S m   STs  M x ,s S s  M x ,s S s 
 2   2 
1
 αˆ q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m  α q ,mT
2
d
dt

Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m (54)
1
 αˆ q , sT Ps (t ) 1 α q , s  α q , sT
2
 d
dt

Ps (t ) 1 α q , s
25
where αq,i  αˆ q,i , because αq,i  αˆ q,i  αq,i and α q ,i is the constant vector of actual
parameters; thus αq,i  0 . Substituting the final error dynamics of master and slave
robots (Eqs. (37) and (38)) in the time derivative of V , yields:
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2, s STs M x , s S s
 STm  M x ,m  2Cx ,m  S m  STs  M x , s  2Cx , s  S s

1 1
2 2
1
 S mT J m T Yq ,m α q ,m  αˆ q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m  α q ,mT
2
d

dt

Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m
(55)
1
 S sT J s T Yq , s α q , s  αˆ q , sT Ps (t ) 1 α q , s  α q , sT
2
d
dt

Ps (t ) 1 α q , s
 S s  kp M x , s x m   s sgn(S s ) 
T
According to Property 2 of robot dynamics that M x,i  2Cx,i is skew symmetric, Eq. (55)
simplifies to:
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2,s STs M x , s S s
 S mT J m T Yq ,m α q ,m  αˆ q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m  α q ,mT  Pm (t ) 1  α q ,m
1 d
2 dt
(56)
 S sT J s T Yq , s α q , s  αˆ q , sT Ps (t ) 1 α q , s  α q , sT  Ps (t ) 1  α q ,s
1 d
2 dt
 S sT  kp M x , s x m   s sgn(S s ) 
Then, using the bounded gain forgetting (BGF) composite adaptation laws (48) and (49),
we have:
26
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2, s STs M x, s S s
 emT RmTWm α q ,m  α q ,mT  Pm (t ) 1  α q ,m

1 d
2 dt
(57)
 e sT RsTW α q , s  α q , sT  Ps (t ) 1  α q , s
1 d
2 dt
Also, using the exponentially forgetting least-squares update rule (51) for the adaptation
gain Pi (t ) , the time derivative of V is obtained as:
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2, s STs M x , s S s

 m (t ) 1
 emT RmTWm α q ,m  α q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m  α q ,mTWmTWm α q ,m
2 2
 (t ) 1 (58)
 e sT RsTW α q , s  s α q , sT Ps (t )1 α q ,s  α q ,sTWsTWs α q ,s
2 2
After that, substituting the relation of the estimation error (47) and Eq. (50), we have:
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2,s STs M x ,s S s

 1  (t )
  am   α q ,mTWmTWm α q ,m  m α q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m
 2 2
 1  (t ) (59)
  as   α q , sTWsTWs α q , s  s α q , sT Ps (t ) 1 α q , s
 2 2
 S sT  kp M x, s x m   s sgn(S s ) 
In order to have robustness against bounded estimation error of master robot
acceleration  xm  , the positive constant parameter s should satisfy the following
component-wise inequality:
 s  kp M x,s xm   s (60)
27
where  s is a positive constant, and . 

gives the infinity norm (maximum norm) of a
T
vector, i.e.: if r =[r1 , r2 , ... , ri ] is a vector with i elements: r  = max (r1 , r2 , ... , ri ) . It
should be noted that the actual parameters in M x,s are uncertain in this adaptive
control strategy and the error of acceleration estimation  x m  is also unknown;
however to have the stability property, the maximum estimated value of M x,s xm 
should be bounded and its bound, as mentioned in Eq. (54), should be less than s . In
other words, s should be chosen as large as needed (using a trial and error method)
such that the stability of the system is provided; which means inequality (60) is satisfied.
Then, the time derivative of Lyapunov function (59) can be written as:
V   2,m STm M x ,m S m  2, s STs M x ,s S s

 1  (t )
  am   α q ,mTWmTWm α q ,m  m α q ,mT Pm (t ) 1 α q ,m
 2 2
 (t ) (61)
 1
  as   α q , sTWsTWs α q , s  s α q , sT Ps (t ) 1 α q , s
 2 2
 s Ss 1
By choosing ai  1 2 and noting that M x ,i and Pi are positive definite and according to
the property of update rule (  t  0 , i (t )  0 ), it is concluded that V is negative
definite.
Using the Lyapunov theorem and Barbalat’s lemma [49], and according to the
positive definiteness of V and negative definiteness of V , the stability of teleoperation
system and the convergence to Sm  0 and Ss  0 are proved. Since the dynamics of
28
master and slave sliding surfaces S m and S s are stable (see Eq. (13)), the convergence
of tracking errors to zero ( x m  0 and x s  0 ) on the surface of Sm  0 and Ss  0 are
proved as t   .
Also, as mentioned before for the update rules (51) and (52), Pi (t )  k0,i I and the
positive definiteness of Wi (which means the persistent excitation of Wi ) guarantee that
i (t )  1,i  0 . Thus, one can write:
i (t ) αq,iT Pi (t )1 αq,i  1,i (t ) αq,iT αq,i k0,i (62)
Under this condition, the convergence of i (t ) αq,iT Pi (t )1 αq,i  0 leads to αq,i  0 ,
which implies the convergence of parameter estimation. Therefore, it is obtained that
i (t )  1,i  0 is the persistent excitation condition for the convergence of parameter
estimation ( αq,i  0 ). A positive constant  0,i is defined as  0,i  min  22,i , 1,i  for each
of master ( i  m ) and slave ( i  s ). Also, by defining  0  min  0,m , 1,s  and using Eqs.
(53) and (61), it can be written for the Lyapunov function that:
V (t )  0 V (t )  0 (63)
Thus, it is concluded that the value of Lyapunov function converges to zero as:
V (t ) V (0) e0t . As a result, the exponential convergence of tracking error S i and
estimation error αq,i to zero is proved due to the definition of Lyapunov function (48).
Before illustrating the simulation results, it should be mentioned that the “sgn”
function in the slave control law (20) or (24) may lead to undesired discontinuities and
29
chattering in the input torques. This function is usually replaced in practice by an
approximate continuous alternatives such as tangent hyperbolic or saturation functions.
In this study, tanh(400 S s ) is used instead of discontinuous sgn(S s ) .
4. SIMULATIONS
In this section, the proposed controller is evaluated by simulations on a two-DOF
robot with one Revolute and one Prismatic joint, as shown in Fig. 6. Each of the master
and slave robots is equipped with a force sensor to measure the externally applied force
and moment. The robots along with the proposed bilateral controller are modeled in
Simulink-Matlab software.
According to Fig. 6, the end-effector can move in the plane of x  z . The
position of the end-effector in the joint space of the robots is expressed as
qm  1 l2 m and q s  1 l2  s for master and slave, respectively, where 1 is the
T T
revolute joint position and l z is the prismatic joint position. The Cartesian position of
the end-effector for each robot is defined as xi   x z  i . The Jacobian matrix of the
T
master ( i  m ) and slave ( i  s ) robots is then found as:
   l  l  sin(1 ) cos(1 ) 
Ji   1 2 
  l1  l2  cos(1 )
(64)
sin(1 )  i
Employing the Lagrange method, the dynamic equations of each robot are
obtained as:
30
I  I  m l
1 2
2
1 1g 
 m2  l1  l2  l2 g  1  2m2  l1  l2  l2 g  l21
2
(65)
 
 m1l1g  m2  l1  l2  l2 g  g cos(1 )  c11  1 sgn(1 )  1
m2 l2  m2  l1  l2  l2 g 12  m2 g sin(1 )  c2l2  2 sgn(l2 )   2 (66)
where the subscript 1 denotes link 1 and joint 1 (revolute), and subscript 2 is used for
link 2 and joint 2 (prismatic). Also, constant parameters I1 , I 2 , m1 , m2 , l1 , l1g , l2 g
are the inertia and dimensional properties of link 1 and 2 of the robots. Moreover, c1
and c2 are the viscous friction coefficients of joints 1 and 2, respectively. Similarly, 1
and  2 are the coulomb friction coefficients of joints 1 and 2, respectively. 1 and  2
are the applied torques on the revolute ( 1 ) and prismatic ( l2 ) joints, respectively. By
arranging Eqs. (65) and (66) in the standard form of dynamics presented in the joint
space, the matrices and vectors in Eqs. (1) and (2) are obtained as:
 I  I  m l 2  m  l  l  l 2 0 
1 2 1 1g 2 1 2 2g

M q ,i (qi )   
 
 0 m2  i
 m2  l1  l2  l2 g  l2 m2  l1  l2  l2 g 1 
Cq ,i (qi , qi )    (67)
 m2  l1  l2  l2 g 1 0 
  i
 
 m1l1g  m2  l1  l2  l2 g  g cos(1 ) 
 
Gq ,i (qi )   
 
 m2 g sin(1 ) i
c11  1 sgn(1 ) 
  1 
Fq ,i (qi )    ,  i   int   
 2 i
i
c2l2  2 sgn(l2 ) 
i
31
where for the master  int m   h and for the slave  int s   e . Moreover, the inertia matrix
can be rewritten in a compact form of:
 M11  m2l22  2m2  l1  l2 g  l2 0 

 
M q ,i (qi )    (68)
 m2  i
 0
where M11  I1  I 2  m1l1g2  m2 l1  l2 g  is a constant parameter.

2
Now, the linear parameterization of the robot dynamics in the joint space that
was used in (29), (30) and (31) is found as:
αq   M11 m2 m2  l1  l2 g  m1 gl1g m2 g  l1  l2 g 
T
m2 g c1 c2 1 2  (69)
Considering the known vectors v1  v11 v12  and v2  v21 v22  in Eq. (31), the
T T
elements of the 2 10 regressor matrix Yq are defined as:
Y1,1  v11 , Y2,1  0,

Y1,2  l2 2 v11  l2 l2 v21  1 v22 ,  Y2,2  v12  l21 v21 ,
Y1,3  2 l2 v11  l2 v21  1 v22 , Y2,3  1 v21 ,
Y1,4  cos(1 ) , Y2,4  0,
Y1,5  l2 cos(1 ) , Y2,5  sin(1 ) ,
Y1,6  cos(1 ) , Y2,6  0, (70)
Y1,7  1 , Y2,7  0,
Y1,8  0, Y2,8  l2 ,
Y1,9  sgn(1 ) , Y2,9  0,
Y1,10  0, Y2,10  sgn(l2 ) ,
32
The parameters of robots’ kinematics and dynamics (67), control laws ((19) and
(20)) and adaptation laws ((48) and (49)) that are used in simulations are given in Table
1. The parameters of the control laws are adjusted such that each controller has its
minimum tracking errors ( x m , x s ). Similarly, the parameters of the adaptation laws are
chosen using trial and error such that the minimum RMS of estimation errors
( em  Wq ,mαq ,m , e s  Wq , s αq , s ) is obtained.
4.1. Telesurgery Application: Position and Force Tracking Objectives
In the first step of simulations, a telesurgery operation on a soft tissue is
performed with transparent condition (position and force tracking performances). To
simulate the teleoperation system, the interaction forces should be produced according
to the dynamics models of the human operator and the environment. These models are
presented by the following general forms [20, 21, 26, 27, 46, 51, 52]:
fh  fh  (M h xm  Ch xm  Kh (xm  x0 )) (71)
fe  M e xs  Ce xs  Ke (xs  x0 ) (72)
where f h is the active force of human operator’s hand generated by the muscles.
M h  mh I , M e  me I , Ch  ch I , Ce  ce I , Kh  kh I and Ke  ke I are diagonal
matrices corresponding to the mass (inertia), damping and stiffness of the operator and
environment, respectively. These dynamic parameters were presented in [26, 27, 46] for
a human operator (surgeon) and soft tissue environment that are listed in Table 2.
33
Also, the active force of human operator is considered to be a combination of some
harmonic functions (like realistic interaction forces presented in experimental studies
[28, 29]):
f hx  f hz  30  25cos(t )  5cos(6 t ) N (73)
In the transparent condition, as discussed in Sec. 3.1, parameters of the master
impedance model (9) are chosen to be small (to obtain force tracking performance) and
the parameters of the slave impedance model (10) are chosen to be large (to obtain
position tracking performance). Also, the position and force scaling factors are
considered to be kp  1 and kf  1 in order to provide the exact tissue force for the
surgeon and to have equal trajectories during the operation. The values of these
impedance parameters and scaling factors are given in Table 3 for telesurgery
application. Moreover, using these parameters, the master impedance model (9) has
two negative real poles ( 2 , 2 ), and the slave impedance model (10) has two negative
real poles ( 20 , 20 ). In other words, according to the standard expression of linear
second order systems, the master impedance model has a natural frequency of
2 rad/sec and a damping ratio of 1 . Also, the slave impedance model has a natural
frequency of 20 rad/sec and a damping ratio of 1 .
Employing the proposed bilateral impedance controller, the following results are
obtained. The interaction force between the surgeon (operator) and the master robot
( f h ), together with the interaction force between the slave robot and the soft tissue
environment ( f e ) both in x direction of the Cartesian space are shown in Fig. 7.
34
As it is seen in Fig. 7, the force tracking (reflecting) performance is approximately
achieved ( fh  kf fe ) in the proposed bilateral teleoperation system. This performance
is a consequence of choosing small values for the master impedance parameters ( mm ,
cm and k m ), as discussed in Sec. 3.1. The force tracking error ( fh  kf fe ) in x direction is
shown in Fig. 8. As it is seen in Fig. 8, the maximum value of force error is 4.1 N (less
than 10% of the maximum interaction force, i.e. 42.5 N in Fig. 7) and it occurred at the
initial instant. Also, the mean value of force error is 0.22 N (0.5% of the maximum
interaction force, i.e. 42.5 N in Fig. 7). It should be mentioned that a small force error is
seen throughout the motion (Fig. 8). This remaining small force error ( fh  kf fe ) is
originated from the small master impedance dynamics
( mm xmodm  cm xmodm  km (xmodm  x0 ) ) that determines the difference between the scaled
interaction forces ( f h and kf fe ) according to Eq. (9).
Figure 9 shows the position responses of master and slave impedance models
together with the master and slave robots’ trajectories in x direction. The initial
position of the master robot is considered to be xm0  xm0 , zm0   0.62, 0.62 m that has
T T
an initial error with respect to the initial value of the master impedance model response
xmodm0   xmodm0 , zmodm0   0.6, 0.6 m . Also, the initial position of the slave robot is
T T
considered to be xs 0  xs 0 , zs 0   0.64, 0.64 m that has an initial error with respect to
T T
the initial position of the master robot.
35
Figure 9 demonstrates that the position tracking performance is achieved in the
teleoperation system, which is the result of choosing large values for the slave
impedance parameters ( ms , cs and k s ), as discussed in Sec. 3.1. Also, the velocities
and accelerations of the master and slave end-effectors and their impedance models are
shown in Fig. 9. The absolute position tracking error between master and slave robots
( x s  kp xm ) in x  z plane is shown in Fig. 10. Also, the absolute position tracking

2
errors of the master and slave robots with respect to their corresponding impedance
models ( xm  xmodm , x s  xmods ) are shown in Fig. 10.

2 2
In Fig. 10, the initial (maximum) value of the absolute tracking error between the
master and slave robots is 2.83 102 m , i.e. 58% of the motion range of master robot in
x direction ( 4.85 102 m due to Fig. 9). However, the mean value of the tracking error
between the master and slave is 7.60 104 m , i.e. 1.5% of the range of master motion in
x direction that is 4.85 102 m (Fig. 9). This tracking error has two sources: 1. the
desired slave error with respect to master xmods  (xmods  kp xm ) that is tried to be small
by choosing large parameters for the slave impedance model (10), and 2. the slave
tracking error ( x s  x s  xmods ) that converges to zero and originated from the
performance of slave controller, which is shown in Fig. 10. Also, the master tracking
error ( xm  xm  xmodm ) is illustrated in Fig. 10 and indicates the performance of the
master controller in asymptotic convergence of the tracking error. Moreover, the mean
values of the master and the slave absolute tracking errors with respect to their
36
corresponding impedance models (9) and (10) are 7.24 104 m and 7.37 104 m ,
respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 10. To elaborate more on the performance of the
bilateral adaptive controller of master and slave in asymptotic tracking, Fig. 11 shows
the (2-norm) values of error dynamics S m 2

and S s 2
that converge to the sliding
surfaces S m  0 and S s  0 during the first second of motion. This convergence to
sliding surfaces ( S m  0 and S s  0 ) was proved using the Lyapunov stability
theorem in section 3.5.
According to the abovementioned results, the proposed bilateral adaptive
impedance controller can achieve their objectives. In other words, the force tracking
(reflecting) performance ( fh  kf fe ) is achieved according to Figs. 7 and 8 by choosing
small values for the master impedance parameters ( mm , cm and k m ) in Eq. (9). Moreover,
the position tracking performance ( x s  kp xm ) is obtained according to Figs. 9 and 10 by
choosing large values for the slave impedance parameters ( ms , cs and k s ) in Eq. (10).
These two objectives (position and force tracking performances) are obtained by
defining a desired impedance objective for each of master and slave robots (one
objective for each robot). However, in previous bilateral nonlinear adaptive controllers
(such as [26, 27]), the position and force tracking performances are followed
simultaneously for each of robots (two objectives for each robot).
In addition, the actual and estimation values of the master acceleration ( x m and
x m est ) together with their difference (estimation error xm  xm est  xm ) in x direction
37
of Cartesian coordinates are shown in Fig. 12. The acceleration estimation error is
similar in z direction and it is not presented here for the sake of brevity. The initial
acceleration of the master robot is specified such that to be approximately the same as
its corresponding impedance model (9), by applying the zero forces at the initial
moment ( t  0 ) of motion. As a result, the master robot has no significant error in its
acceleration at the initial moment in comparison with its impedance model (9).
However, as shown in Fig. 12, the acceleration estimation error becomes non-zero after
applying the interaction forces and having non-zero response of master impedance
model, and due to the initial position error of the master robot with respect to its
impedance response. As it is seen, the acceleration estimation error ( x m ) converges to
zero during the first 0.1 sec of motion as a result of convergence of master robot
trajectory to its impedance model response (Fig. 9). This performance is in accordance
with the presented discussion for obtaining the master estimated acceleration x m est by
Eq. (12). During this initial short time duration (about 0.1 sec) of motion, the
acceleration estimation has a bounded error that its upper bound is about 1.7 m s 2 in
each direction of Cartesian space (Fig. 12). This upper bound should be estimated
conservatively in experimental studies; however, simulation results help the controller
designer to have a better initial estimation. Based on the inequality (60) and the
maximum estimated value of M x,s xm 

, the value of robust gain s in the slave
control law (20) is adjusted on 3.5 as mentioned in Table 1. Due to Figs. 9-11, it is seen
that the slave robot can successfully achieve its desired trajectory ( x mod s ) and also the
38
transparency condition is provided well in the presence of bounded transient error of
the acceleration estimation ( x m ). Moreover, it is concluded that  s sgn(S s ) in the
slave control law (20) (which is replaced by  s tanh(400 Ss ) to avoid chattering) can
provided the robustness against the bounded estimation error of the master
acceleration ( x m ).
It should be mentioned that the upper bound of transient error ( x m ) in the
master acceleration estimation decreases by specifying the same initial position and
velocity for the master robot and its corresponding impedance model which results in
decreasing the initial master position and velocity errors. Under this condition, the
accuracy of Eq. (12) in estimating the actual master acceleration using the dynamics of
its impedance model increases and the transient value of xm  xm est  xm decreases.
The performance of the proposed controller in parameter adaptation is shown in
Fig. 13. This figure shows the estimation of ten dynamic parameters introduced in Eq.
(69) for the master (Fig. 13 a) and slave (Fig. 13 b) robots. All of the model parameters of
the two robots are considered to be completely uncertain. Accordingly, in the
adaptation laws (48) and (49) of both robots, an arbitrary initial guess
αˆ q initial  [0.058 0.53 0.43 15.58 5.2 5.3 15 6 2.6 1.2]T is used for the vector of
parameters that is completely different from its real value:
αq actual  [0.875 2 0.5 9.81 19.62 4.905 3 15 1.5 2.5]T (in SI units).
As it is seen in Fig. 13, the estimation process has almost settled after about
seven seconds. As mentioned before in Sec. 3.4 about the BGF composite adaptation
39
laws and in the stability proof (Sec. 3.5), when the persistent excitation conditions
m (t )  1,m  0 and s (t )  1,s  0 are satisfied for both master and slave, the
parameter estimation errors ( α q ,m and α q ,s ) converge to zero. Using parameters ai  1 ,
0,i  3.5 , k0,i  100 and Pi initial  33 I in the adaptation laws (48)-(52), the value of
i (t ) for the master ( i  m ) and slave ( i  s ) during the motion is obtained and shown
in Fig. 14.
As it is clear in Fig. 14, i (t ) is always positive during the whole motion and
consequently the condition i (t )  1,i  0 is satisfied. Thus, the composite adaptation
laws (48) and (49) can estimate the actual parameters of the master and slave robots as
their convergence is shown in Fig. 13. This can also be realized from the comparison of
the final estimations of the parameters (Fig. 13) and their actual values:
αq actual  [0.875 2 0.5 9.81 19.62 4.905 3 15 1.5 2.5 ]T .
4.2. Telerehabilitation Application: Flexibility of Patient and Force Reflecting

Objectives
In the second step of simulations, a telerehabilitation operation on the upper
limb (arm) of a patient is performed. As mentioned in Sec. 3.1, in telerehabilitation and
telesonography applications an adjustable flexibility is desired for the slave robot in its
interaction with the patient limb (environment). Accordingly, the parameters ( ms , cs
and ks ) of the slave impedance model (10) should be decreased in comparison with the
previous telesurgery application (Sec. 4.1). By decreasing these impedance parameters
in (10), the slave robot becomes more flexible in its interactions with the environment
40
and consequently has higher tracking errors ( xmods ). In other words, in a
telerehabilitation system that the slave robot moves the patients’ limbs, it can have a
limited flexibility and the patient is permitted to deviate from the initially designed
(master) trajectory according to the slave impedance model (10).
In this case, the dynamic models of therapist (human operator) and the patient
limb (environment) are presented by the following forms:
fh  fh  (M h xm  Ch xm  Kh (xm  x0 )) (74)
fe  fe  M e xs  Cexs  Ke (xs  x0 ) (75)
where f h and f e are respectively the active forces of therapist and patient generated
by their arm muscles. The dynamic parameters ( M h  mh I , M e  me I , Ch  ch I ,
Ce  ce I , Kh  kh I and Ke  ke I ) of the therapist and patient’s arms can be used from
[26, 27, 46] where the human arm parameters are presented in Table 4.
Also, the active force of therapist (operator) and patient (environment) are considered
to be a combination of some harmonic functions (similar to the experimental studies in
[28, 29]):
f hx  f hz  90  75cos(t )  15cos(6 t ) N (76)
fex  fez  10  8cos(1.5t )  2cos(5 t ) N (77)
To have force reflecting (tracking) condition, as discussed in Sec. 3.1, the
parameters of the master impedance model (9) are chosen to be small (to obtain force
tracking performance). Moreover, to have a flexible interaction between the slave robot
41
and the environment, values of the slave impedance parameters in (10) should be
chosen to be as small as needed for its flexibility. Also, the position and force scaling
factors are considered as kf  1 and kp  1 in order to reflect the exact patient
interaction force on the therapist hand and to follow the exact trajectory of the master
robot by the slave. The values of these impedance parameters and scaling factors are
givrn in Table 5 for telerehabilitation applications. Similar to the previous section, using
these parameters, the master impedance model (9) has two negative real poles
( 2 , 2 ), and the slave impedance model (10) has two negative real poles ( 20 , 20 ).
Accordingly, the master impedance model has a natural frequency of 2 rad/sec and a
damping ratio of 1 , and the slave impedance model has a natural frequency of
20 rad/sec and a damping ratio of 1 . Since in telerehabilitation applications the patient
should have flexibility in physical interactions, the slave impedance parameters in Table
5 are decreased 100 times in comparison to the previous section (a telesurgery
application). Also, similar to the previous section, the master impedance parameters are
chosen to be small to obtain the force reflecting (tracking) performance as discussed in
Sec. 3.1.
Using the proposed bilateral adaptive impedance controller, the interaction
forces between the therapist (operator) and the master robot ( f h ), and the interaction
force between the patient (environment) and the slave robot ( kf fe ) in z direction are
shown in Fig. 15.
42
As it is seen in Fig. 15, the force tracking (reflecting) performance is
approximately achieved ( fh  kf fe ) by choosing small values for the master impedance
parameters ( mm , cm and k m ), similar to the previous section. In other words, the
therapist has a full haptic force feedback from the patient force. The force tracking error
( fh  kf fe ) in z direction is shown in Fig. 16. As seen in Fig. 16, the mean value of the
force error is 0.42 N (less than 0.5% of the maximum interaction force, i.e. 86 N in Fig.
14). The source of the small force error in Fig. 16 is the small master impedance
dynamics ( mm xmodm  cm xmodm  km (xmodm  x0 ) ) which determines the difference between
the scaled interaction forces ( f h and kf fe ) according to Eq. (9).
The position, velocity and acceleration responses of master and slave impedance
models, and the master and slave robots’ trajectories in z direction are shown in Fig.
17. According to Fig. 17, the position tracking performance is weak, which is the result
of choosing small values for the slave impedance parameters ( ms , cs and k s ) to
provide flexibility, as discussed in Sec. 3.1. The absolute position tracking error between
master and slave robots ( x s  kp xm ) in x  z plane is shown in Fig. 18. Also, the
2
absolute position tracking error of the master and slave robots with respect to their
corresponding impedance models ( kp xm  xmodm , x s  xmods ) are shown in Fig. 18.

2 2
In Fig. 18, the absolute tracking error between the master and slave robots are
considerable due to realizing a flexibility for the patient that can deviate from the
master trajectory. Therefore, the main part of this tracking error is the desired slave
43
error with respect to the scaled master position xmod  xmod  kp xm . This error becomes
s s
larger in comparison with the previous simulations of telesurgery operation (Sec. 4.1) as
a result of choosing smaller parameters for the slave impedance model (10), as
discussed in Sec. 3.1. Also, the master and slave tracking errors with respect to their
corresponding impedance models ( xm  xm  xmodm , x s  x s  xmods ) in Fig. 18 are small
and converge to zero that indicates a suitable performance of master and slave adaptive
controllers.
In the obtained results for telesurgery and telerahabilitation applications, the
master robot trajectory tracks its impedance response ( xm  xmodm , xm  xmodm and
xm  xmodm as shown in Figs. 9 and 17). Therefore, the master robot behaves similar to
its desired impedance model (9) in response to the operator and environment forces
and can be written as:
mmxm  cmxm  km (xm  x0 ) fh  kf fe (78)
As a result, the master impedance parameters ( mm , cm and km ) in addition to the
position, velocity and acceleration of the master ( x m , x m and x m ) specify the force
tracking error (fh  kf fe ) . On the other hand, the human operator can enforce his
desired position, velocity and acceleration to the master by applying an appropriate
force ( f h ) according to Eq. (78). However, by increasing the absolute values of master
position ( x m with respect to x 0 ), velocity ( x m ) and acceleration ( x m ), the force tracking
error (fh  kf fe ) also increases due to Eq. (78).
44
Therefore, the bound and mean values of force tracking error are related to the
selected master impedance parameters and the generated master trajectory by the
interaction forces. In the presented simulations, the master impedance parameters are
chosen to be small (as listed in Tables 3 and 5) to decrease the force tracking error while
the master impedance model stability is also guaranteed. Under this condition, for the
common motions of master and consequently slave robots (such as in Figs. 9 and 17),
the force tracking error (as shown in Figs. 8 and 16) is small in comparison with the
magnitude of each interaction force ( f h and f e as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 15). As
mentioned previously, the mean value of the force error in Figs. 8 and 16 is around 0.5%
of the maximum interaction forces shown in Figs. 7 and 15.
4.3. Intermittent Contact with Hard Environment
Intermittent contact with hard environment such as bones in robotic tele-
surgery is of great importance since it may have significant impact on the performance
of the bi-lateral control system. To investigate such condition for the proposed
controller, the stiffness of the environment (tissue) in model (72) is significantly
increased to ke  10000 N/m (as assumed previously in [53]). The other parameters of
the human operator and tissue are considered the same as those presented in Table 2

for models (71) and (72). Also, the components of f h as the active force of the human
operator’s hand in Eq. (71) are considered to be fhx  fhz  30  30 cos(t ) N . The initial
positions of the robots and their impedance models are the same as those in Sec. 4.1. To
45
simulate a hard tissue contact during a tele-surgery operation, the parameters of
impedance models (9) and (10) are adjusted similar to Sec. 4.1 (listed in Table 3) for
achieving the transparency condition.
As seen in Fig. 19, when the position of the slave end-effector reaches the
surface of the hard tissue that is located on ze  0.66 m , the contact starts ( t  0.88 sec )
and the environment interaction force ( f e ) becomes non-zero. As shown in Fig. 19, the
force tracking error temporarily becomes larger at the starting moments of this
intermittent hard contact and then decreases. However, this force error is small after
and before the contact when the salve robot has a free (non-contact) motion based on
previous discussions on Eq. (78). The velocity and acceleration values have sudden
changes at the starting time of the contact which are not shown for the sake of brevity.
Also, the estimation error of the master acceleration that converges to zero before the
contact, has bounded jumps (with the absolute maximum value of 1.8 m sec2 ) at the
start of contact ( t  0.88 sec ) as illustrated in Fig. 18. However, the controller is robust
against this bounded acceleration error as mentioned previously in sections 3.2, 3.5 and
4.1. Accordingly, the proposed controller provides the stability of the teleoperation
system during such hard intermittent contact; however, bounded transient force
tracking error and acceleration estimation error may occur at the start of this kind of
contact.
5. CONCLUSIONS
46
In this paper, a new bilateral nonlinear adaptive impedance controller is
proposed for nonlinear multi-DOF teleoperation systems. The controller provides an
asymptotic tracking of two desired impedance models for master and slave robots in
presence of parametric uncertainties. The reference impedance models define two
dynamical relationships between end-effector positions and interaction forces of master
and slave robots. The master impedance model determines the haptic sense of the
operator in its physical interaction, and the slave impedance model establishes the
flexibility of the slave robot in its interactions with environment.
In previous nonlinear adaptive controllers, two conventional control objectives
that are position and force tracking are followed simultaneously for each robot. As
discussed in Sec. 1, reaching these two objectives for each DOF of robot (in Cartesian
coordinates) with one control input is difficult. However, in the proposed nonlinear
adaptive impedance controller, one control objective (realizing the impedance model)
can be provided for each DOF with one control input. Moreover, unlike some previous
nonlinear bilateral controllers, the measurement of the acceleration signals of master
and slave robots are not required in the control laws.
The system dynamics, impedance models, control laws and Lyapunov stability
proof are all presented in Cartesian coordinates. However, the BGF composite
adaptation laws are defined in the joint space to decrease the computational
complexity, especially for higher DOF robots. Accordingly, the terms of the Lyapunov
function are found in two different coordinates.
47
The presented simulations on a two DOFs master and slave robots show the
performance of the proposed bilateral controller in realizing the desired impedance
models.
Consequently, the controller can be used in many applications of teleoperation
systems such as tele-surgery, tele-sonography and tele-rehabilitation. In each
application, the parameters of the two impedance models can be chosen according to
the requirements and objectives. For example, in tele-surgery applications, the slave
tracking accuracy is more important in comparison with the slave flexibility
(compliance). In this case, the slave impedance parameters should be increased as much
as needed. Also, in tele-rehabilitation and tele-sonography applications for which the
slave robot should have higher compliance in its interaction with the patient
(environment), the slave impedance parameters should be decreased. Moreover, the
parameters of the master impedance model can be chosen according to the haptic
sense, transparency and force reflecting performance of the teleoperation system in
each application as it is discussed in Sec. 3.1.
It should be mentioned that the existence of bounded time delays in the
communication channels of the proposed teleoperation system will affect the stability
proof and transparency analysis. These issues may be the subjects of some future works
for the systems with communication delays.
REFERENCES
[1] Tavakoli, M., Aziminejad, A., Patel, R. V., and Moallem, M., 2006, "Methods and
Mechanisms for Contact Feedback in a Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive
48
Environment," Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques, 20(10), pp.

1570-1579.
[2] Carignan, C. R., and Krebs, H. I., 2006, "Telerehabilitation Robotics: Bright Lights,
Big Future?," Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43(5), pp. 0748-
7711.
[3] Johnson, M., Loureiro, R. V., and Harwin, W., 2008, "Collaborative Tele-
Rehabilitation and Robot-Mediated Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation at Home or
Clinic," Intelligent Service Robotics, 1(2), pp. 109-121.
[4] Najafi, F., and Sepehri, N., 2011, "Design and Prototyping of a Force-Reflecting
Hand-Controller for Ultrasound Imaging," Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 3(2), pp.
021002 (11 pages).
[5] Wang, W., and Yuan, K., 2004, "Teleoperated Manipulator for Leak Detection of
Sealed Radioactive Sources," eds., 2, pp. 1682-1687.
[6] Woo-Keun, Y., Goshozono, T., Kawabe, H., Kinami, M., Tsumaki, Y., Uchiyama,
M., Oda, M., and Doi, T., 2004, "Model-Based Space Robot Teleoperation of Ets-Vii
Manipulator," Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, 20(3), pp. 602-612.
[7] Hirabayashi, T., Akizono, J., Yamamoto, T., Sakai, H., and Yano, H., 2006,
"Teleoperation of Construction Machines with Haptic Information for Underwater
Applications," Automation in Construction, 15(5), pp. 563-570.
[8] Parker, N. R., Salcudean, S. E., and Lawrence, P. D., 1993, "Application of Force
Feedback to Heavy Duty Hydraulic Machines," eds., 1, pp. 375-381.
[9] Hashemzadeh, F., and Tavakoli, M., 2015, "Position and Force Tracking in Nonlinear
Teleoperation Systems under Varying Delays," Robotica, 33(04), pp. 1003-1016.
[10] Colgate, J. E., 1993, "Robust Impedance Shaping Telemanipulation," Robotics and
Automation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(4), pp. 374-384.
[11] Dongjun, L., and Li, P. Y., 2003, "Passive Bilateral Feedforward Control of Linear
Dynamically Similar Teleoperated Manipulators," Robotics and Automation, IEEE
Transactions on, 19(3), pp. 443-456.
[12] Lawrence, D. A., 1993, "Stability and Transparency in Bilateral Teleoperation,"
Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(5), pp. 624-637.
[13] Yokokohji, Y., and Yoshikawa, T., 1994, "Bilateral Control of Master-Slave
Manipulators for Ideal Kinesthetic Coupling-Formulation and Experiment," Robotics and
Automation, IEEE Transactions on, 10(5), pp. 605-620.
[14] Fite, K. B., Speich, J. E., and Goldfarb, M., 1999, "Transparency and Stability
Robustness in Two-Channel Bilateral Telemanipulation," Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, 123(3), pp. 400-407.
[15] Munir, S., and Book, W. J., 2003, "Control Techniques and Programming Issues for
Time Delayed Internet Based Teleoperation," Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, 125(2), pp. 205-214.
[16] Alfi, A., and Farrokhi, M., 2008, "A Simple Structure for Bilateral Transparent
Teleoperation Systems with Time Delay," Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 130(4), pp. 044502 (9 pages).
49
[17] Polushin, I. G., Liu, P. X., Lung, C.-H., and On, G. D., 2010, "Position-Error Based
Schemes for Bilateral Teleoperation with Time Delay: Theory and Experiments," Journal
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 132(3), pp. 031008 (11 pages).
[18] Lee, H. K., and Chung, M. J., 1998, "Adaptive Controller of a Master–Slave System
for Transparent Teleoperation," Journal of Robotic Systems, 15(8), pp. 465-475.
[19] Shi, M., Tao, G., and Liu, H., 2002, "Adaptive Control of Teleoperation Systems,"
Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology, 10(1-2), pp. 37-57.
[20] Wen-Hong, Z., and Salcudean, S. E., 2000, "Stability Guaranteed Teleoperation: An
Adaptive Motion/Force Control Approach," Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on,
45(11), pp. 1951-1969.
[21] Malysz, P., and Sirouspour, S., 2009, "Nonlinear and Filtered Force/Position
Mappings in Bilateral Teleoperation with Application to Enhanced Stiffness
Discrimination," Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, 25(5), pp. 1134-1149.
[22] Lee, D., and Spong, M. W., 2006, "Passive Bilateral Teleoperation with Constant
Time Delay," Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, 22(2), pp. 269-281.
[23] Chopra, N., Spong, M. W., and Lozano, R., 2008, "Synchronization of Bilateral
Teleoperators with Time Delay," Automatica, 44(8), pp. 2142-2148.
[24] Ryu, J.-H., and Kwon, D.-S., 2001, "A Novel Adaptive Bilateral Control Scheme
Using Similar Closed-Loop Dynamic Characteristics of Master/Slave Manipulators,"
Journal of Robotic Systems, 18(9), pp. 533-543.
[25] Hung, N. V. Q., Narikiyo, T., and Tuan, H. D., 2003, "Nonlinear Adaptive Control
of Master–Slave System in Teleoperation," Control Engineering Practice, 11(1), pp. 1-10.
[26] Liu, X., and Tavakoli, M., 2012, "Adaptive Control of Teleoperation Systems with
Linearly and Nonlinearly Parameterized Dynamic Uncertainties," Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 134(2), pp. 021015 (10 pages).
[27] Liu, X., and Tavakoli, M., 2011, "Adaptive Inverse Dynamics Four-Channel Control
of Uncertain Nonlinear Teleoperation Systems," Advanced Robotics, 25(13-14), pp.
1729-1750.
[28] Sharifi, M., Behzadipour, S., and Vossoughi, G., 2014, "Nonlinear Model Reference
Adaptive Impedance Control for Human–Robot Interactions," Control Engineering
Practice, 32(pp. 9-27.
[29] Sharifi, M., Behzadipour, S., and Vossoughi, G. R., 2014, "Model Reference
Adaptive Impedance Control in Cartesian Coordinates for Physical Human–Robot
Interaction," Advanced Robotics, 28(19), pp. 1277-1290.
[30] Sharifi, M., Behzadipour, S., and Vossoughi, G. R., 2012, "Model Reference
Adaptive Impedance Control of Rehabilitation Robots in Operational Space," eds., pp.
1698-1703.
[31] Hogan, N., 1985, "Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part I---
Theory," Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107(1), pp. 1-7.
[32] Kazerooni, H., Sheridan, T., and Houpt, P., 1986, "Robust Compliant Motion for
Manipulators, Part I: The Fundamental Concepts of Compliant Motion," Robotics and
Automation, IEEE Journal of, 2(2), pp. 83-92.
50
[33] Lu, Z., and Goldenberg, A. A., 1995, "Robust Impedance Control and Force
Regulation: Theory and Experiments," The International Journal of Robotics Research,
14(3), pp. 225-254.
[34] Anderson, R. J., and Spong, M. W., 1988, "Hybrid Impedance Control of Robotic
Manipulators," Robotics and Automation, IEEE Journal of, 4(5), pp. 549-556.
[35] Lu, W. S., and Meng, Q. H., 1991, "Impedance Control with Adaptation for Robotic
Manipulations," Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, 7(3), pp. 408-415.
[36] Chien, M., and Huang, A., 2004, "Adaptive Impedance Control of Robot
Manipulators Based on Function Approximation Technique," Robotica, 22(04), pp. 395-
403.
[37] Abdossalami, A., and Sirouspour, S., 2009, "Adaptive Control for Improved
Transparency in Haptic Simulations," Haptics, IEEE Transactions on, 2(1), pp. 2-14.
[38] Seraji, H., 1994, "Adaptive Admittance Control: An Approach to Explicit Force
Control in Compliant Motion," eds., 4, pp. 2705-2712.
[39] Tee, K. P., Yan, R., and Li, H., 2010, "Adaptive Admittance Control of a Robot
Manipulator under Task Space Constraint," eds., pp. 5181-5186.
[40] Rubio, A., Avello, A., and Florez, J., 1999, "Adaptive Impedance Modification of a
Master-Slave Manipulator," eds., 3, pp. 1794-1799.
[41] Dubey, R. V., Tan Fung, C., and Everett, S. E., 1997, "Variable Damping Impedance
Control of a Bilateral Telerobotic System," Control Systems, IEEE, 17(1), pp. 37-45.
[42] Love, L. J., and Book, W. J., 2004, "Force Reflecting Teleoperation with Adaptive
Impedance Control," Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE
Transactions on, 34(1), pp. 159-165.
[43] Cho, H. C., and Park, J. H., 2005, "Stable Bilateral Teleoperation under a Time
Delay Using a Robust Impedance Control," Mechatronics, 15(5), pp. 611-625.
[44] Garcaa-Valdovinos, L. G., Parra-Vega, V., and Arteaga, M. A., 2007, "Observer-
Based Sliding Mode Impedance Control of Bilateral Teleoperation under Constant
Unknown Time Delay," Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 55(8), pp. 609-617.
[45] Abbott, J. J., and Okamura, A. M., 2007, "Pseudo-Admittance Bilateral
Telemanipulation with Guidance Virtual Fixtures," The International Journal of Robotics
Research, 26(8), pp. 865-884.
[46] Liu, X., Tao, R., and Tavakoli, M., 2014, "Adaptive Control of Uncertain Nonlinear
Teleoperation Systems," Mechatronics, 24(1), pp. 66-78.
[47] Craig, J. J., 2005, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control,
Pearson/Prentice Hall,
[48] Spong, M. W., and Hutchinson, S., 2005, Robot Modeling and Control, Wiley,
[49] Slotine, J. J. E., and Li, W., 1991, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prantice-Hall, NJ,
Englewood Cliffs.
[50] Khatib, O., 1987, "A Unified Approach for Motion and Force Control of Robot
Manipulators: The Operational Space Formulation," Robotics and Automation, IEEE
Journal of, 3(1), pp. 43-53.
[51] Sirouspour, S., and Setoodeh, P., 2005, "Adaptive Nonlinear Teleoperation Control
in Multi-Master/Multi-Slave Environments," eds., pp. 1263-1268.
51
[52] Speich, J. E., Shao, L., and Goldfarb, M., 2005, "Modeling the Human Hand as It
Interacts with a Telemanipulation System," Mechatronics, 15(9), pp. 1127-1142.
[53] Hashtrudi-Zaad, K., and Salcudean, S. E., 1996, "Adaptive Transparent Impedance
Reflecting Teleoperation," eds., 2, pp. 1369-1374.
Figure Captions List
Fig. 1 A schematic diagram of teleoperation systems consist of master robot, a
slave robot, a human operator, an environment, and communication
channels
Fig. 2 The signal transmissions in the proposed bilateral controller with three
communication channels
Fig. 3 The haptic sense of the human operator using the master impedance
model (9)
Fig. 4 The concepts of the master and slave impedance models in the proposed
bilateral control strategy
Fig. 5 The structure of the bilateral adaptive impedance controller
Fig. 6 The two-DOF robot manipulator with revolute and prismatic joints used
for the evaluation of the proposed controller
Fig. 7 Interaction forces between the surgeon and master ( f h ), and between
the slave and soft tissue environment ( f e ) in x direction
Fig. 8 The force tracking error ( fh  kf fe ) in x direction
Fig. 9 Position, velocity and acceleration of the master and slave robots
together with their impedance model responses in x direction
52
Fig. 10 The absolute position tracking errors in x  z plane: the master error
with respect to its impedance model xm  xmod (blue dashed line), the
m 2
slave error with respect to its impedance model x s  x mod (red dash-
s 2
dot line), and the error between master and slave x s  kp xm 2

(black solid
line).
Fig. 11 The convergence of master and slave error dynamics S m and S s to

2 2
the sliding surfaces S m  0 and S s  0 in less than one second
Fig. 12 The actual and estimation values of the master acceleration ( x m and
x m est ) together with their difference (estimation error xm  xm est  xm )
in x direction, where the master acceleration is estimated by Eq. (12)
Fig. 13 The estimation of ten dynamic parameters for (a) master and (b) slave
Fig. 14 The value of the master and slave forgetting factors m (t ) and  s (t )
Fig. 15 Interaction forces between the therapist and the master robot ( f h ), and
between the slave and the patient ( f e ) in z direction
Fig. 16 The force tracking error ( fh  kf fe ) in z direction
Fig. 17 Position, velocity and acceleration of the master and slave robots
together with their impedance model responses in z direction
Fig. 18 The absolute position tracking errors in x  z plane: the master error
53
with respect to its impedance model xm  xmod m 2

(blue dashed line), the
slave error with respect to its impedance model x s  x mod s 2

(red dash-
dot line), and the error between master and slave x s  kp xm 2

(black solid
line).
Fig. 19 Position and force tracking performance together with master
acceleration estimation during the intermittent contact with a hard
tissue, the contact starts at t  0.88 sec when the slave end-effector reach
to the surface of tissue ( ze  0.66 m ) and ends at t  5.37 sec .
54
Table Caption List
Table 1 The parameter values of the robots, control laws and adaptation laws
Table 2 Dynamic parameters of a human operator (surgeon)’s arm and soft
tissue environment
Table 3 Master and slave impedance parameters with scaling factors for
telesurgery application
Table 4 Dynamic parameters of the therapist (operator) and patient
(environment)
Table 5 Master and slave impedance parameters together with scaling factors for
telerehabilitation application
55
Fig. 1 A schematic diagram of teleoperation systems consist of master robot, a slave

robot, a human operator, an environment, and communication channels
56
Fig. 2 The signal transmissions in the proposed bilateral controller with three
communication channels
57
Fig. 3 The haptic sense of the human operator using the master impedance model (9)
58
Fig. 4 The concepts of the master and slave impedance models in the proposed bilateral
control strategy
59
Fig. 5 The structure of the bilateral adaptive impedance controller
60
Fig. 6 The two-DOF robot manipulator with revolute and prismatic joints used for the
evaluation of the proposed controller
61
50
f
Interaction Forces : f h and f e (N)
h
40
f
e
30
20
10
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 7 Interaction forces between the surgeon and master ( f h ), and between the slave
and soft tissue environment ( f e ) in x direction
62
2
Force Tracking Error: f h-k f f e (N)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 8 The force tracking error ( fh  kf fe ) in x direction
63
0.67
0.66
Position in x direction (m)
0.65
0.64
0.63 Master Imp. Model

Master Robot
0.62
Slave Imp. Model
0.61
Slave Robot
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.08
Velocity in x direction (m/s)
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
Acceleration in x direction (m/s )
2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 9 Position, velocity and acceleration of the master and slave robots together with
their impedance model responses in x direction
64
0.03
0.025 Master Error WRT its Imp. Model

Position Tracking Error (m)
Slave Error WRT its Imp. Model

0.02 Error Between Master and Slave
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 10 The absolute position tracking errors in x  z plane: the master error with
respect to its impedance model xm  xmod m 2

(blue dashed line), the slave error with
respect to its impedance model x s  x mod s 2

(red dash-dot line), and the error between
master and slave x s  kp xm 2

(black solid line).
65
0.2
||S || : Distance to Master Sliding Surface

m 2
Distance to Sliding Surfaces
0.15 ||S || : Distance to Slave Sliding Surface

s 2
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (sec)
Fig. 11 The convergence of master and slave error dynamics S m 2

and S s 2
to the
sliding surfaces S m  0 and S s  0 in less than one second
66
2.5 Actual Master Acceleration

Acceleration estimation (m/s )
2
2 Estimated Master Acceleration

Estimation Error of Master Acceleration
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (sec)
Fig. 12 The actual and estimation values of the master acceleration ( x m and x m est )
together with their difference (estimation error xm  xm est  xm ) in x direction, where
the master acceleration is estimated by Eq. (12)
67
20
 q,m 1
18
 q,m 2
Estimated Parameters of Master Robot
16
 q,m 3
14
 q,m 4
12
 q,m 5
10
 q,m 6
8
 q,m 7
6
 q,m 8
4
 q,m 9
2
 q,m 10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
(a)
20
 q,s 1
18
 q,s 2
Estimated Parameters of Slave Robot
16
 q,s 3
14
 q,s 4
12
 q,s 5
10
 q,s 6
8
 q,s 7
6
 q,s 8
4
 q,s 9
2
 q,s 10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
(b)
Fig. 13 The estimation of ten dynamic parameters for (a) master and (b) slave
68
3.5
Forgetting Factors of Adaptation Laws
3 m
s
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 14 The value of the master and slave forgetting factors m (t ) and  s (t )
69
100
Interaction Forces : f h and f e (N)
f
80 h
f
e
60
40
20
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 15 Interaction forces between the therapist and the master robot ( f h ), and
between the slave and the patient ( f e ) in z direction
70
4
Force Tracking Error: f h- k f f e (N)
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 16 The force tracking error ( fh  kf fe ) in z direction
71
0.9
Position in z direction (m)
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7 Master Imp. Model

Master Robot
0.65
Slave Imp. Model
Slave Robot
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.4
Velocity in z direction (m/s)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1.5
Acceleration in z direction (m/s )
2
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 17 Position, velocity and acceleration of the master and slave robots together with
their impedance model responses in z direction
72
0.035
0.03
Position Tracking Error (m)
0.025
0.02
Master error WRT its Imp. Model

0.015
Slave error WRT its Imp. Model
0.01 Error between Master and Slave
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Fig. 18 The absolute position tracking errors in x  z plane: the master error with
respect to its impedance model xm  xmod m 2

(blue dashed line), the slave error with
respect to its impedance model x s  x mod s 2

(red dash-dot line), and the error between
master and slave x s  kp xm 2

(black solid line).
73
0.67
0.66
Position in z direction (m)
0.65
0.64 Contact with hard tissue
0.63
Master Imp. Model
0.62 Master Robot
Slave Imp. Model
0.61
Slave Robot
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (sec)
2
Force Tracking Error: f h-k f f e (N)
Contact with hard tissue

-1
-2
-3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (sec)
5
Acceleration estimation (m/s )
2
-5 Contact
Actual Master Acceleration
Estimated Master Acceleration
Estimation Error of Master Acceleration
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Fig. 19 Position and force tracking performance together with master acceleration
estimation during the intermittent contact with a hard tissue, the contact starts at
t  0.88 sec when the slave end-effector reach to the surface of tissue ( ze  0.66 m ) and
ends at t  5.37 sec .
74
Table 1 The parameter values of the robots, control laws and adaptation laws
Parameters of the Robots Parameters of the Parameters of the

(for master and slave) Adaptation Laws Control Laws
m1  4 kg , m2  2 kg am  as  1 1,m  1,s  1
I1  0.083 kg.m2 ,
0,m  0,s  5 2,m  2,s  60
I 2  0.0415 kg.m2
l1  0.5 m , l2  0.5 m k0,m  k0,s  100  s  3.5
l1g  0.25 m , l2 g  0.25 m Pm initial  Ps initial  33 I66
g  9.81 m/s2
c1  3 N.m.s , c2  15 N.s/m
1  1.5 N.m , 2  2.5 N
75
Table 2 Dynamic parameters of a human operator (surgeon)’s arm and soft tissue
environment
Parameters of the Surgeon Parameters of the Soft Tissue
(Operator) (Environment)
mh  3.25 kg me  1 kg
ch  20 N.s/m ce  40 N.s/m
kh  300 N/m ke  1500 N/m
76
Table 3 Master and slave impedance parameters with scaling factors for the telesurgery
application
Master impedance Slave impedance Position and force
parameters parameters scaling factors
mm  1 kg ms  1000 kg kp  1
cm  4 N.s/m cs  40000 N.s/m kf  1
km  4 N/m ks  400000 N/m
77
Table 4 Dynamic parameters of the therapist (operator) and patient (environment)

Parameters of the Therapist Parameters of the Patient
(Operator) (Environment)
mh  3.25 kg me  3.25 kg
ch  20 N.s/m ce  20 N.s/m
kh  300 N/m ke  300 N/m
78
Table 5 Master and slave impedance parameters together with scaling factors for the
telerehabilitation application
Master impedance Slave impedance Position and force
parameters parameters scaling factors
mm  0.5 kg ms  10 kg kp  1
cm  2 N.s/m cs  400 N.s/m kf  1
km  2 N/m ks  4000 N/m
79
View publication stats

Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Control With Applications in Telesurgery and Telerehabilitation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Control With Applications in Telesurgery and Telerehabilitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Control with Applications in

Article in Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · June 2016

Mojtaba Sharifi Saeed Behzadipour

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Optimum Design of Mechanical Systems View project

Laparoscopy Simulation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance

excavator type [8].

As shown in Fig. 1, a teleoperation system consists of a user-interface (master)

robot, a tele-operated (slave) robot, a human operator, an environment, and

communication channels. Teleoperation performance is greatly improved when the

the human operator, the system is called transparent.

unavailable in a realistic system due to uncertainties. Therefore, the stability and

the environment dynamics are considered to be uncertain.

Moreover, to do complex tasks in multi-directional space, multi-DOF nonlinear

bilateral controller for uncertain nonlinear teleoperation systems is a desired objective

slave dynamics by considering linear operator and environment dynamics instead of

communication channel. In these controllers [22, 23], the objective is state

the control law of the other robot.

In this paper, we developed a new bilateral nonlinear adaptive impedance

controller instead of previously mentioned bilateral position, force or combined

position-force controllers. Therefore, the corresponding background and literature of

the impedance/admittance control is briefly mentioned. The impedance/admittance

control has recently found an important role in different physical human-robot

virtual impedance/admittance model, that is the desired virtual dynamical relationship

control can be realized by impedance/admittance control theory [28-30].

According to the early innovative works on impedance and compliance control

control [28-30, 35] approximation-based impedance control [36] and adaptive

teleoperation (telerobotic) system including more than one robot.

and admittance type bilateral controllers considering an impedance/admittance model

stiffness elements). As a result, the lack of a nonlinear bilateral controller for

implementing a generalized impedance/admittance scheme to uncertain nonlinear

(multi-DOF) teleoperation systems is evident in the literature. Such controller will

definitely require a comprehensive nonlinear stability analysis before it can be

implemented in actual systems.

In this paper, a new Nonlinear Bilateral Adaptive Impedance Controller (NBAIC) is

proposed that has the following characteristics and advantages:

1. A general nonlinear form of bilateral impedance control is designed for multi-

master and slave robots,

2. Accordingly, instead of two conventional control strategies (position tracking

and force tracking), the impedance/admittance (virtual dynamics) of the teleoperation

system is considered as the control objective,

3. The controller can be used in different applications such as telesurgery and

telerehabilitation by adjusting the target impedance parameters,

4. The proposed controller is robust against dynamic uncertainties of the system,

bilateral control strategy), and

6. Unlike the previous adaptive bilateral controllers designed in Cartesian

are developed in Cartesian coordinates.

bilateral adaptive impedance controller are novel in the context of teleoperation

environments (two impedance models).

The paper is structured as follows: In section 2, the nonlinear model of a multi-

DOF uncertain teleoperation system is presented. In section 3, the bilateral nonlinear

adaptive impedance controller is proposed. The desired impedance models of the

telerehabilitation (Sec. 4.2) applications are presented and discussed in section 4 to

remarks are mentioned in section 5.

2. NONLINEAR MODEL OF AN UNCERTAIN TELEOPERATION SYSTEM

M q,m (qm ) qm  Cq,m (qm , qm ) qm  Gq,m (qm )  Fq,m (qm )  τ m  τ h (1)

M q,s (qs ) qs  Cq,s (qs , q s ) qs  Gq,s (q s )  Fq,s (q s )  τ s  τe (2)

applies to the slave robot.

The dynamics of the robots in the Cartesian space is expressed as:

M x,m (qm ) xm  Cx,m (qm , qm ) xm  Gx,m (qm )  Fx,m (qm )  fm  fh (3)