Tactile Force Control Feedback in a Parallel Jaw Gripper
Daniel Castrol', Lino Marques*', Urban0 Nunes*' and A.T. de Almeida*'
*ISR - Institute of Systems and Robotics (Coimbra Pole), 3030 Coimbra, Portugal.
UCEH - University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 Faro, Portugal.
' Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Pole 11, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract - Carrying out an autonomous object prehension
task, needs some active interaction with the environment,
which only could be done with sensory integration on the
robot tools. A study of the contact force control performed
with tactile feedback in a low cost servo-controlled parallel
jaw gripper is presented in this article. This gripper
integrates matricial tactile sensors and proximity sensors.
Considering the nonlinear nature of the control system,
hybrid control strategies were used, inter-relating classical
digital control strategies with heuristic rules and logic. Two
control algorithms were studied, and experimentally
validated in a force-compliant mechanical system: hybrid
proportional controller; hybrid proportional integral and
derivative controller.
I. INTRODUCTION
Object grasp stability depends on two factors: 1)- an
appropriate prehension force; 2)- correct contact points
location. Usually, the contact force control is in the third
phase of the grasping process, the postcontact phase, when
there is a well defined contact between the robot tool and
the object. In this phase the goal is to get contact stability,
which means the ability for the end-effector to maintain
contact with an object without slipping even when the
object is subjected to disturbing external forces,
Several researchers have been studying the force control
in robotic mechanisms namely Mason [l], Mason and
Salisbury [ 2 ] and Nakamura et al. [3]. Contact force
control deals namely the transition problem from position
control (precontact) to force control (postcontact). Recent
work has shown that successful transitions from free
motion to constrained motion can possibly be addressed by
gain scheduling algorithms, and requires the control of the
contact forces as soon as contact is made [4].
This paper addresses a new approach to tactile force
control provided by the analysis of matricial tactile
information.
A. Article Organisation
A brief description of the tactile sensor is given in
section 11. The forces centre (centroid) processing is
introduced in section 111. In section IV, a modified digital
PID controller and the resultant hybrid PID controller
experimentally used are described. In section V
experimental results are shown. Finally, section VI
contains some concluding remarks and discusses future
work.
IEEE Catalog Number: 97TH8280 -884-
11. THE TACTILE SENSOR
The tactile sensing system developed in the ISR-
Coimbra Pole (Institute of Systems and Robotics) [5,6],is
based on a piezoresistive thick-film polymer manufactured
by Interlinkm. The distributed pressure is sensed by a
16x16 matrix of force sensing resistors (FSR) pressure
transducer (tactile elements or taxels), providing a spatial
resolution of 1.54 mm with a sensing area of 6.25 mm2.
The FSR elements are polymer film gauges that exhibit
decreasing electrical resistance with applied normal force.
The acquisition module combines an analog-digital
scanning circuit and a 16 bits microcontroller (Intel
80C196KC) with an analog-to-digital converter, as shown
in Fig. 2. The scanning array technique implements a
taxel-isolation technique that consists in a voltage
feedback of the selected taxel into all other not selected
rows and columns taxels [ 5 ] , with a maximum sampling
rate for the entire matrix of 125 Hz. This module
dimensions are small enough to put them on a robot arm
near the wrist.
The two-layered design of the FSR transducer can give
rise to degradation of the sensor response if the two halves
are allowed to slide one relatively to the other. To cope
with this problem we placed a 10 mils thick, low
resistance, sheet of anisotropic elastomeric conductive
polymer interconnect (manufactured by AT&T) between
the transducer halves likely Speeter [7]. Covering the FSR
sheet there is a compliant rubber, too.
111. CONTACT FORCES MODEL
Only the contact normal force distribution is sensed by
the tactile sensor. Associating this characteristic, to the
Fig. 1. Parallel jaw gripper with tactile and proximity feedback.
ISIE'97 - Guimariies, Portugal

Fig. 2. Tactile Sensor Scanning and Acquisition Hardware.
sensor planar geometry, gives a parallel forces system with
points of application in the sensors plane. These two
conditions leads to the possibility of force centre (centroid)
computation and related resultant force.
Let {S’) denote the coordinates system of the tactile
sensor in the left hand finger. The centroid c’ described in
{ S’ } is given by a point with coordinates:
R’
R‘
where R’ represents the resultant force, F’ij represents the
contact force in each tactile element (ij) and (X’i, z’j) are
the coordinates of each tactile element (i,j).
The resultant force in each matricial subsystem is
perpendicular to the sen:sors plane XY and is the result of
the algebraic sum of all contact forces in each subsystem.
The resultant force R’ described in ( S ’ } is given by the
following expression:
16 16
R’= CC F‘, 2’
;=I j L 1
where z‘denotes the unit vector along 2’-axis. Similarly,
we can obtain the centroid c” relative to the right hand
finger.
IV.CONTACT FORCE CONTROL
A. Experimental Setup
A parallel jaw gripper was developed for grasping and
fine manipulation. Its mechanical actuation system consists
of a ball-screw with a right and left threads, and a 2.6:l
gear box. The actuator is a permanent-magnet DC motor
(PMDC).
The force control study was accomplished using only
one gripper finger in c.ontact with a compliant surface.
Two different compliant devices were used to study
different contact force ranges, one referred as Spring I
IEEE Catalog Number: 9mH8280
Fig. 3. Force model, in a parallel jaw gripper with a matricial tactile
sensor in each finger. There are three coordinate systems: { S ’ ) associated
to the tactile matrix in the left hand finger, {S”] associated to the tactile
matrix in the right hand finger and (S} associated to the gripper
coordinate system.
(less flexible) and the other as Spring I1 (more flexible).
B. Contact Force Control Methodologies
Usually all types of motion transmission systems have
several nonlinearities. To deal with these nonlinearities,
some researchers have been developing new control
strategies, based on nonlinear programming, hybrid
controllers and heuristics [2].Linear optimal control was
used by Akella and Cutkosky [4], considering negligible
nonlinearities, to deal with contact forces.
Considering the nonlinear nature of the control system,
hybrid control strategies were used in this work, inter-
relating classical digital control strategies with heuristic
rules and logic. Two control algorithms based on a
modified digital PID controller were studied, and
experimentally validated in a force-compliant mechanical
system: a hybrid proportional controller and a hybrid
proportional integral and derivative controller.
C. Mod$ed Digital PID Controller
Some modifications to the standard discrete PID control
algorithm have been proposed to improve its performance
(see Fig. 4) [8]. In order to reduce large output changes
caused by rapid changes in the reference signal, the
reference variable r(k) is not included in the derivative
term (B-Block, in Fig. 4). All the integral parameters are
only present in the integration term (A-Block, in Fig. 4).
This modified algorithm is less sensitive to higher
frequencies of r(k) than to those of fr(k). The controller gi
parameters, are:
Kp.TD
go = - K , - 7 (3)
(4)
where, KP is the proporcional gain, Ti is the integration
time, To is the derivative time and T, is the sampling time.
- 885 - ISIE’97 - GuimarLs, Portugal
 Fig. 4.Closed loop system with a modified discrete PID controller.
The controller pi parameters are different for both
integration methods in use. For the rectangular integration
method,
T I m u,(k) in a proper command value u*(k) to drive the servo-
and the controller difference equation is
r m
(7)
For the trapezoidal method,
K p 4
Po = P i =-
2. I;
and the controller difference equation is
The tuning of the controller parameters was made
according to Takahashi PID tuning rules[8].
D. Hybrid PID Controller
The gripper (mechanical structure and PMDC motor) is
a nonlinear system. A dead-zone and an actuator saturation
are the most significant nonlinearities. The gripper could
be represented by the nonlinear function of Fig. 5 .
The developed hybrid control system, shown in Fig. 6 ,
is composed by five modules: the digital PID controller
G,(q-’) module; the command scaling module; the dead-
zone transposal module; the actuator management module;
I test reference value r(k)=3000, with actuator management,
I
I f, + for the trapezoidal (continuous line) and rectangular
Saturation
*- , -
I transition from precontact to postcontact. The initial
Fig. 5. Actuator system nonlinearities.
WEE Catalog Number: 97TH8280
Fig. 6. Developed control system, considering: the driver command
scaling (116) module; the dead-zone transposal module
( u(k) = 3z A + U * ( k ) ); and the actuator management module.
and the process G(q”)module.
The command scaling converts the controller command
amplifier. Next, the command value U * @ ) needs to
transpose the dead-zone threshold. Dead-zone transposal
consists of a simple addition operation (u(k)=+A+u *((k)),
with the threshold value A=270. Finally, the actuator
management module annuls the actuation command
whenever the output value is in the range of 98% of the
reference value.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Results of the hybrid proportional controller are shown
in Figs. 7, S, 9 and 10, for different gain values in some
cases with and in other cases without actuator
management. The dead-zone thresholds are represented in
these figures by two dotted lines (values +270). Fig. 7
shows a proportional step response to a test reference value
r(k)=3000, without actuator management. The
proportional gains are Kp=l (continuous line) and
Kp=0.05 (dashed line). Fig. 8 represents the digital control
value u(k) of the proportional controller without actuator
management, shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 9 shows a proportional
step response to a test reference value r(k)=3000, in this
case with actuator management. The proportional gain is
Kp=0.05 (continuous line), Fig, 10 represents the digital
control values u,(k) (dashed line) and u(k) (continuous
line), of the proportional controller with actuator
management, for the test condition of Fig. 9. As can be
seen in Fig. 10, the digital control value u,(k) needs to be
scaled to a new value u*(k)=(1/6).uc(k),and the dead-zone
transposal is accomplished by the operation
u(k)=+270+u *(k). In this particular test, the actuator
management provides to the control system an excellent
output response, as can be seen in Fig, 9.
Results of the hybrid PID controller are shown in Figs,
11 and 12 for different integration methods (rectangular
and trapezoidal). Fig. 11 shows a PID step response to a
(dotted line) integration methods. Fig. 12 represents the
digital control values u,(k) of the trapezoidal integration
(continuous line) and the rectangular integration (dotted
line), to the test conditions of Fig. 11. This test includes a
distance between the fingertip and the compliant test
system is 3 mm. The Spring I1 compliant device was used.
- 886 - ISIE’97 - GuimarZies, Portugal
 .-.Kp=l

hj
' -0
0 10 20 30 40 50 , 70 80 90 100 0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

N.SAMPLES (Ts=32msl N SAMPLES (Tsx32ms)

Fig. 7. Proportional step response to a test reference value r(k)=3000, Fig. 8. Digital control values u(k) from a proportional controller without
without actuator management. The proportional gains are Kp=l (-) and actuator management. The reference value is r(k)=3000. The proportional
Kp=0.05 (---). gains ace Kp=l L) and Kp=0.05 (-).

-400 I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 YO 100

N.SAMPLES (Ts32ms) N SAMPLES (Ts=32ms)

Fig. 9. Proportional step reslponse to a test reference value r(k)-3000, Fig. 10. Digital control values u,(k) (---I and ufk) (-), from a
with actuator management. The proportional gain is Kp=0.05. proportianal controller with actuator management. The reference value is
The actuator management uses a 98% criterion to the final value. r(k)=3000. The proportional gain is Kp=0.05.

0 10 20 30
-40 50 60 70 80 90 100
.3"
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 YO
J
100
EL SAMPLES (Ts=32ms) N.SAMPLES (Ts=32ms)

Fig. 11. PID step response with trapezoidal integration (-) and Fig. 12. Digital control values u,(kj, for trapezoidal integration (-) and
rectangular integration (...), ita a reference value r(k)=3000. The initial rectangular integration (...), to the test conditions of Figure 11.
distance between the fingertip and the compliant test system is 3 mm.

IEEE Catalog Number: 9LllU8280 -887- ISIE'W - GuimarSes, Portugal

The best results were achieved with the trapezoidal
integration method.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
A force controlled gripper was described using tactile
sensing in fingertips.
The tactile sensor provides good qualitative information.
Similar to human tactile system, a good contact perception,
doesn’t require an absolute force value knowledge.
To increase the gripper fingertips compliance besides
the rubber compliant cover, some passive compliance must
be inserted on the fingertips.
The next step is the integration of this gripper in a
teleoperated robotic sensory system for remote grasping
and fine manipulation. A virtual environment of the
remote station, integrating tactile information, proximity
information, vision and force-torque control, was already
developed in the ISR [9] to remotely control a PUMA
robot manipulator.
VII. REFERENCES
[l] M.T. Mason, “Compliance and Force Control for
Computer Controlled Manipulators”, IEEE Trans. on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 11, 1981,
pp.418-432.
[2] M.T. Mason and J.K. Salisbury Jr, Robot Hands and
the Mechanics of Manipulation, MIT Press, 1985.
IEEE Catalog Number: 97TH8280 -888-
[3] Y. Nakamura, K. Nagai and T. Yoshikawa, ”Dynamics
and Stability in Coordination of Multiple Robotic
Mechanisms”, International Journal of Robotics
Research, vo1.8, no.2,April 1989, pp.44-61.
[4] P. N. Akella and M. R. Cutkosky, ”Contact Transition
Control with Semiactive Soft Fingertips“, IEEE
Trans. on Robotics and Automation, vol. 11, no. 6,
1995, pp.859-867.
[ 5 ] U. Nunes, D. Castro, L. Silva and A.T. de Almeida,
“Sensor de Tacto Matricial Piezoresistivo para
AplicaGBes em Robbtica”, in Proceedings of the 3as
Jornadas Hispano-Lusas de Ingenieria Electrica,
1993, pp.1735-1744, (in Portuguese).
[6] D. Castro, L. Marques, U. Nunes and A.T. de Almeida,
“Preens50 com Recurso a InformaS5o de Tacto e
Proximidade para Tarefas de Manuseamento com
Incerteza Posicional”, in Proceedings of the 4as
Jornadas Luso-Espanholas de Engenharia
Electrothica, 1995, pp. 1585-1592, (in Portuguese).
[7] T.H. Speeter, “A Tactile Sensing System For Robotic
Manipulation”, International Journal of Robotics
Research, vol. 9, no. 6, 1990, pp.25-36.
[81 R. Isermann, Digital Control Systems, Springer-Verlag,
1981.
[9] R. CortesIo, R. Arafijo, U. Nunes and A.T. de
Almeida, “Modeling and Communicating in
Teleoperation Environments”, in Preprints of the 4th
IFAC Workshop on Algorithms and Architectures for
Real-Time Control (AARTC‘971, 1997, pp. 199-204.
ISIE’97 - Guimariies, Portugal