Force Disturbance Observer-based Force Control for
Compliant Interaction with Dynamic Environment
Kangwagye Samuel
Department of Robotics Engineering Department of Robotics Engineering
DGIST
Daegu, Korea Daegu, Korea
ksamuel27@dgist.ac.kr cds094@dgist.ac.kr
Abstract—Disturbances are one of the major challenges that
should be dealt with when designing high performance force
control systems for robots that interact with unknown environ-
ments. To achieve high performance dynamic interaction, this
2021 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics (ICM) | 978-1-7281-4442-9/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICM46511.2021.9385628
paper presents a robust force control system that implements a
force disturbance observer (FDOB). Dynamic compliance with
the environment is greatly improved with this control technique.
The whole force control structure consists of a servo system with
a force sensor, the proposed FDOB, feedforward and feedback
controllers, and the low-pass filter for attenuating measurement
noises of the force sensor feedback signal. The nominal model
of the proposed FDOB is obtained by nonparametric system
identification method. The FDOB then estimates disturbances by
utilizing the motor torque and force sensor measurement signals
as its inputs. Theoretical analyses of the FDOB and the overall
force control system are conducted. To validate the proposed
control structure, experiments are conducted while considering
various scenarios from where it is found out that it shows superior
performance over the conventional force control method.
Index Terms—force disturbance observer, robust force control
I. I NTRODUCTION
Collaboration of robots with humans has showed an in-
creasing trend in recent years with the main contribution
being in manufacturing industries [1]. Due to high demand,
many kinds of robots are being developed to carryout various
activities alongside humans. Safety of both humans and robots
themselves is therefore an important aspect that can not be
ignored in this situation since the robot needs to freely interact
with the external environment minus causing harm [2]–[4].
Force control is one of the methods that is largely utilized
to achieve safe interaction of robots with the environment [5],
[6]. Note that the function of a force control system is to
deliver a desired force to the environment. This is however
difficult since the environment is unknown and hence, the force
control performance is largely deteriorated by the influence
of uncontrolled external forces and disturbances [7], [8]. To
mitigate this, various approaches have been developed.
Compliant control via drive-torque sensor feedback was
conducted in [9] while a detection and control method to
*This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (NRF-
2019R1A2C2011444).
978-1-7281-4442-9/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Dasol Cheon Sehoon Oh
Department of Robotics Engineering
DGIST DGIST
Daegu, Korea
sehoon@dgist.ac.kr
quickly react to collisions is presented in [10]. Furthermore,
other researchers have investigated using distributed joint
torque sensors to detect external forces and utilize the infor-
mation to control the joints [11], [12].
A disturbance observer (DOB) [13], [14] is common for
applications in which unknown disturbances and model un-
certainties are to be suppressed. In particular, the acceleration
based DOB empathizes the effect of inertial forces [15]. In
other words, the reaction force in the acceleration-based DOB
control to reject the disturbance should be large enough to
keep the desired position. However, to operate safely, the robot
should be compliant to the external forces. To achieve this,
a force-based disturbance observer was proposed in [16] to
regulate the effect of disturbances on the force control system.
They utilized force reference and force response signals to
estimate and suppress the disturbances without considering the
plant nominal model.
With regard to the above background, this paper presents
the design and analysis of a robust force control system that
implements a force DOB (FDOB) for regulating the influence
of unknown disturbances on the force controlled system. The
significant difference with the existing studies is that the pro-
posed FDOB-based control system becomes soft by generating
very small or no reaction force when the external forces
are detected, hence, dynamic force interaction performance
is improved. In addition, a force servo system with a force
sensor is utilized in this study, moreover, the nominal model
of the FDOB is obtained by utilizing nonparametric system
identification to measure the plant parameters and derive the
plant model. This has an advantage of obtaining the reduced
model that can be easily implemented compared to when it
is derived from the actual plant dynamics. The FDOB then
estimates the force disturbances by using the force sensor
measurements and the motor torque signals as its inputs. In
this paper, the disturbances include inertial forces, frictional
forces, and model uncertainties.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the description of the proposed control structure and
its parts while Section III discusses the derivation and detailed
analysis of the closed-loop control performance. Experiments
are conducted and presented in Section IV, and lastly, the
conclusion is given in Section V.

Fig. 1. Overview of the force control structure.
II. F ORCE C ONTROL S TRUCTURE
The overview of the proposed robust force control system
is illustrated in Fig. 1. The servo system with a force sensor
is utilized such that the force exerted on the load by the
motor can be measured and used for both disturbance esti-
mation and feedback. In addition, the FDOB is designed to
estimate and compensate for the disturbances into the system,
and a low-pass filter (LPF) is utilized for filtering out high
frequency force measurement noises. Lastly, feedback (FB)
and feedfoward (FF) force controllers are utilized to improve
the performance of the closed-loop system.
A. Description of the Plant
The plant utilized in this paper is a robotic stage presented
in [17], and its 3D diagram is shown in Fig. 2. This is a
servo system with a force sensor, and its drive mechanism
is a motor-load system that consists of the DC motor, lead
screw to change rotary motion of the motor to linear motion
of the load, and the force sensor. Notice that the force sensor
is attached between the nut and the load plate such that it can
measure the force acting between the load and the motor.
The configuration of Fig. 2 can be modeled as a two-mass
system shown in Fig. 3, representing the motor dynamics,
Fig. 2. Robotic stage which mainly consists of a top plate, bottom plate,
guide-ways, and the drive system.
Fig. 3. Two-inertia system representation of Fig. 2, where N , K, F , X,
θ, τm , τd , Pm , and Pl are conversion constant between rotary and linear
motions, force sensor stiffness constant, actual force, load linear position,
motor angular position, motor torque, lumped disturbances, motor dynamics,
and plant dynamics, respectively.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
20
Magnitude (dB)
0
-20
-40
-1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Fig. 4. Bode plot of the measured FRFs. Thick black line is the estimated
model that best fits the experimentally measured FRFs.
the force sensor, and the load dynamics. The force sensor is
modeled as a stiff spring system which measures force exerted
on the load by the motor through the ball-screw. To this end,
the open-loop transfer function, Gol , from τm to F , of the
two-mass system in Fig. 2 is derived as
N KPm (s)
Gol (s) = , (1)
N 2 (1 + KPl (s)) + KPm (s)
where Pm = 1/(Jm s2 + Bm s) and Pl = 1/(Ml s2 + Bl s); J• ,
M• , and B• are inertia, mass, and damping coefficient, while
subscripts m and l stand for motor and load, respectively.
B. Design and Analysis of Force Disturbance Observer
1) Identification of the Nominal Model: The nominal model
of the FDOB is obtained by supplying a Schroeder multisine
(containing 100 sines) of a flat amplitude spectrum with
0 – 100 Hz excitation and the sampling frequency of 8 kHz to
the motor, while recording force measurements by the force
sensor. Compared to other excitation methods such as chirp
and random signals, the advantage with using the multsine
signal is that the system is excited at all frequencies and there-
fore, same power is injected into the system. Ten experiments
are carried out and the frequency response function (FRF) for
each experiment is calculated. The results of magnitude and
phase are plotted in Fig. 4. Thick black line is the estimated
best fit of the FRF from the measured 10 realizations which
is identified by a modal curve fitting technique as a second
order transfer function shown below
gn ωn2
Gn (s) = 2 , (2)
s + 2ζn ωn s + ωn2
where the nominal parameters gn , ωn , and ζn are gain,
natural frequency, and damping coefficient, and their values
are calculated as gn = 19 dB, ωn = 22 Hz, and ζn = 0.22.
2) Analysis of the FDOB Characteristics: The proposed
FDOB in this paper estimates disturbances by using the motor
torque input and force measurement signals as its inputs, as
illustrated in Fig. 5. Thus, the estimated lumped disturbance,
τ̂d , is expressed as
 
T̂d = Q Tm − G−1 n Fmeas , (3)
 0

Magnitude (dB)
-20

-40

Fig. 5. The proposed FDOB attached to the open-loop system in Fig. 3. Where 100 102 104
τc , Fnoise , Fmeas , τ̂d , and Q are auxiliary control input, force measurement Frequency (Hz)
noises, force sensor measurement, estimate of τd , and Q-filter, respectively.
Fig. 6. Influence of force measurement noises to the estimated disturbances.
where Q = (ωQ /(s + ωQ ))2 , ωQ is the Q-filter bandwidth,
and T̂d , Tm , and Fmeas are the Laplace transforms of τ̂d , τm , used here and on-wards are given in Table I. It can be
and Fmeas , respectively. observed that the force measurement noise intensity in the
The closed-loop sensitivity, SF DOB , and complimentary estimated disturbance becomes larger as ωQ is increased.
sensitivity, TF DOB , transfer functions are derived from Fig. 5 Hence, the FDOB bandwidth can be increased to 30 Hz,
as follows thereby providing good robustness performance with allowable
1−Q amount of measurement noises.
SF DOB (s) = , (4)
1 − Q + QG−1 n Gol III. C LOSED - LOOP C OMPLIANT F ORCE C ONTROL
QG−1n Gol Fig. 7 shows a block diagram of the two-degree-of-freedom
TF DOB (s) = 1 − SF DOB (s) = . (5)
1 − Q + QG−1 n Gol robust force control structure proposed in this study. It consists
At low frequencies, i.e., Q = 1, SF DOB → 0 and TF DOB → of the feedback controller, Cf b , a feedforward controller, Cf f ,
1, whereas at high frequencies, i.e., Q = 0, SF DOB → 1 and the FDOB which was presented in the previous section.
and TF DOB → 0. Therefore, (4) and (5) show that the The LPF is given by LP F (s) = N −1 ωL /(s + ωL ), where ωL
FDOB-based controller can precisely suppress disturbances is its bandwidth.
and noise at asymptotic frequencies. Further, the close-loop A. Design of Feedforward and Feedback Controllers
transfer functions of the FDOB loop in Fig. 5, are given by Each of the controllers is designed by utilizing the nominal
Gol model, Gn , in (2). Cf b is designed as a propotional-integral-
Tτc →F (s) = , (6)
1 − Q + QG−1 n Gol derivative (PID) controller whose gains are calculated by pole
(1 − Q)Gol cancellation technique based on the nominal plant model.
Tτd →F (s) = , (7) Whereas Cf f is designed as Cf f = G−1
1 − Q + QG−1 n Gol n × LP F , where the
LPF is used to make the controller proper.
where T◦→• represents the closed-loop transfer function from
◦ to •. It is observed from (6) and (7) that, at low frequencies, B. Analysis of LPF Bandwidth
i.e., when Q = 1, Tτc →F is normalized to Gn by the FDOB, There is a trade-off between noise attenuation and dis-
and Tτd →F → 0, hence, the influence of the force disturbances turbance estimation in the proposed force control structure.
is fully regulated by the proposed FDOB. To analyze this phenomenon, the sensitivity function of the
3) Q-filter Bandwidth Analysis: The force sensor measure- FDOB-based force control is derived from Fig. 7 as follows
ment noise, Fnoise , and the lumped disturbances, τd , are 1−Q
independent and uncorrelated since Fnoise is a force sensor SF DOB (s) = . (9)
1 − Q + Gol (LP F × Cf b + QG−1n )
characteristic. In spite of this fact, Fnoise can affect the FDOB
performance. Therefore, the influence of force measurement The frequency response characteristics of (9) are plotted
noises on the estimated disturbances is determined by the in Fig. 8 at varying values of ωL when ωQ = 30 Hz.
following transfer function It is observed that, robustness performance deteriorates as
ωL increases, an indication that the system becomes more
−QG−1
TFnoise →τ̂d (s) = n
. (8) sensitive to noises. Therefore, the reasonable value of ωL
1 − Q + QG−1n Gol can be determined from Fig. 8 as ωL = 10 Hz where
Bode plot of (8) is given in Fig. 6 which shows the amount both noise attenuation and accurate disturbance estimation and
of Fnoise in τ̂d at different ωQ values. The other parameters suppression performances are maintained.
TABLE I C. Reference Tracking Performance
PARAMETER VALUES
From Fig. 7, the tracking performance of the closed-loop
Parameter Value Parameter Value system is derived as follows
Jm 7.441e-4 kg·m2 Ml 11.257 kg
Bm 2.1e-3 Nm·s/rad Bl 0.55 N·s/m Gol (Cf f + Cf b )
Tτref →F (s) = . (10)
K 1 N/m N 1.923 1 − Q + Gol (LP F × Cf b + QG−1
n )

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 7. Block diagram of overall robust force control structure. τref , Cf f , and Cf b are reference torque input, feedforward controller, and feedback controller,
respectively. The rest of the parameters are as defined before.

50 40

Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)

0 20

-50
0

-100
-20
-1 0 1 2 3
-150 10 10 10 10 10
0 2 4 Frequency (Hz)
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz) Fig. 9. Tracking performance analysis.
Fig. 8. Bode-plot of the closed-loop sensitivity transfer function.
Thus, (13), (14), and (15) can be combined by the relationship
It is observed from (10) that the FDOB affects the behavior of F = Φ1 (Tref + Φ2 Fnoise + Φ3 Td ), (16)
the closed-loop control system. This is because of the presence
of the QG−1 term in the denominator. Fig. 9 is the Bode which expresses the influence of noise and disturbances on the
n
diagram of (10) when ωQ = 30 Hz and ωL is varying. There reference tracking. In (16), F, Tref , Fnoise , and Td are the
are highest resonances at low values of ωL , which deteriorates Laplace transforms of F , τref , Fnoise , and τd , respectively.
stability and robustness, resulting in bad tracking performance. Further, the frequency characteristics of (16) are plotted in
As ωL increases, the level of resonances reduces and hence Fig. 10 in red colored lines while gray lines show those of
improved stability. However, this allows more high frequency when FDOB is not implemented (conventional force control
noises into the system. with force sensor feedback only). Implementation of FDOB
shows that there is less effect of low frequency disturbances on
D. Influence of Fnoise and τd on Reference Tracking the reference tracking as compared to when the FDOB is not
The closed-loop transfer functions from Fnoise and τd to utilized (dash-dot lines), whereas the influence of measurement
the output force F are derived from Fig. 7 as noises is similar in both cases (dashed lines). Comparing the
−Gol (LP F × Cf b + QG−1 reference tracking, i.e., Φ1 for both cases, (solid lines), the
n )
TFnoise →F (s) = , (11) proposed control scheme exhibits a lower resonance than the
1 − Q + Gol (LP F × Cf b + QG−1n ) conventional method, which is an indication of better control
(1 − Q)Gol performance of the FDOB-based force control method.
Tτd →F (s) = . (12)
1 − Q + Gol (LP F × Cf b + QG−1
n )
IV. E XPERIMENTAL V ERIFICATION
If Tτref →F (s) in (10) is represented by Φ1 , i.e., In this section, experiments are conducted to validate the
Φ1 (s) = Tτref →F (s), (13) performance of the proposed force control scheme. Moreover,
for comparison purposes with the proposed FDOB-based
the influence of Fnoise and τd on τref can be calculated from
control, force control without the FDOB is also carried-out.
(11), (12), and (13) as given below
The apparatus in Fig. 2 is utilized in experiments while the
TFnoise →F (s) −(LP F × Cf b + QG−1
n ) parameter values are given in Table I.
Φ2 (s) = = , (14)
Tτref →F (s) Cf f + Cf b A. Reference Tracking Performance Experiments
Tτd →F (s) 1−Q
Φ3 (s) = = . (15) The first experiment is when τref is supplied as: 0 Nm
Tτref →F (s) Cf f + Cf b from 0 s to 1 s, 1 Nm magnitude sine signal from 1 s to

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 50 2

Torque (Nm)
Feedback with FDOB Ref. torque input
1
Magnitude (dB) 0 0
-1
-50
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
-100
(a)
2

Torque (Nm)
-150 Feedback with no FDOB Ref. torque input
1

-200 0
10-2 10 0
10 2
10 4 -1
Frequency (Hz) 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 10. Bode-plot showing the influence of measurement noise and distur- Time (s)
bances to the overall force control performance. (b)

Variance (Nm2 )
0.2
Feedback with no FDOB
4 s, and 0 Nm from 4 s to 5 s. As expected, force control Feedback with FDOB
with FDOB shows better reference tracking performance than 0.1
when FDOB is not utilized, as shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b).
To compare the performance, variances for the tracking errors 0
are calculated and plotted in Fig. 11(c) where large error 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
variances are observed when FDOB is not utilized in force
(c)
control. Moreover, the root mean square error (RMSE) values
are calculated as 0.0796 Nm for feedback with FDOB and Fig. 11. Reference tracking performance. (a) Force control with FDOB. (b)
Force control with out FDOB. (c) Tracking error variances.
0.2879 Nm for feedback with out FDOB, which confirm the
superior performance of the proposed method.
In the second experiment, τref , which is a swept-sine signal 1
Torque (Nm)

of frequency ranging from 0.1 Hz to 10 Hz, is supplied.

Results are plotted in Fig. 12 for feedback with FDOB in 0 Feedback with FDOB Ref. torque input

Fig. 12(a) and feedback without the FDOB in Fig. 12(b). The
force feedback signal with FDOB is observed to be superior to -1
0 2 4 6 8 10
the direct feedback control. Moreover, much as performance
Time (s)
is deteriorated as frequency of the reference input increases,
(a)
the proposed method outperforms the conventional method.
1
Torque (Nm)

B. Robustness Performance Experiments

1) Reference Force with Motor Perturbation: A step-wise
reference signal is supplied while the fictitious disturbances are
added directly to the motor input as 1 Hz and 2 Hz sinusoidal
signal of 0.1Nm magnitude each, from 2 s to 4 s and 5 s to 7 s,
respectively. Results are plotted in Fig. 13 for feedback with
and without the proposed FDOB. The proposed method detects
and suppresses the applied fictitious disturbances (Fig. 13(a)).
The disturbance suppression is further verified in Fig. 13(b)
which compares the actual applied and the FDOB estimated
sinusoidal signal torque disturbances. On the other hand, direct
feedback does not suppress the disturbances and results in poor
control performance.
2) Zero Force Control with External Perturbation to the
Load: In further experiments, zero force control experiment is
conducted to investigate the compliance of the force controlled
system to the external forces. It is important to note that when
the reference force is set to zero, the reaction generated force
by the force control when the external force is detected should
be as small as possible for compliance to be achieved. The
external force is applied to the load through a force sensor
0 Feedback with no FDOB Ref. torque input
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
(b)
Fig. 12. Reference tracking performance when a swept-sine excitation signal
is supplied as torque reference. (a) Force control with FDOB. (b) Force control
with out FDOB.
to measure its actual value. Two scenarios are considered: 1)
Slow pushing and pulling of the load with a small force, and
2) Fast pushing and pulling with a relatively large force, and
the results are plotted in Fig. 14. Two observations can be
made from the results: First, there is a very large difference
between the feedback signal with FDOB and the actual applied
external torque than that between actual and feedback with no
FDOB. And second, the feedback signal with FDOB is smooth
showing system stability as compared to that with no FDOB
which has oscillations and hence unstable. These observations
are evidence of superiority in force control performance when

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Reference tracking performance Slow push and pull Slow push and pull
0.15 2 1
Applied external Feedback
Torque (Nm)

torque with no FDOB

0.1 1 Ref. torque

Torque (Nm)

Torque (Nm)
input 0
0.05 Feedback with no FDOB Ref. torque input 0 Ref. torque
Feedback with FDOB input
Feedback -1
0 with FDOB
0 2 4 6 8 10 -1 Applied external
torque
Time (s)
(a) -2 -2
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 6 7 8 9
Time (s) Time (s)
Disturbance suppression performance
0.2
Estimated disturbance Actual disturbance input Fast push and pull Fast push and pull
Torque (Nm)

1.5 0.5

0 1 0

Torque (Nm)

Torque (Nm)
0.5 -0.5

-0.2 0 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) -0.5 -1.5
(b)
-1 -2
Fig. 13. Robustness to perturbation at the motor input when the reference 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 15.5 16 16.5 17
force is supplied. Time (s) Time (s)

the proposed FDOB-based force control is implemented than
the conventional direct force sensor feedback control.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
Force control utilizing force disturbance observer was pro-
posed in this paper. This method suppresses the effect of
unknown disturbances, which improves the overall control
performance, and hence compliance with the dynamic forces
from the external environment is improved. Robust force
control experiments were conducted on an actual robot and
results showed that the proposed method exhibits superior per-
formance over the conventional force sensor feedback control.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Villani, F. Pini, F. Leali, and C. Secchi, “Survey on human–
robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and
applications,” Mechatronics, vol. 55, pp. 248–266, 2018.
[2] S. Haddadin, A. De Luca, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Robot collisions: A
survey on detection, isolation, and identification,” IEEE Transactions on
Robotics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1292–1312, 2017.
[3] E. Colgate, A. Bicchi, M. A. Peshkin, and J. E. Colgate, “Safety for
physical human-robot interaction,” in Springer handbook of robotics,
pp. 1335–1348, Springer, 2008.
[4] B. Matthias, S. Kock, H. Jerregard, M. Kallman, I. Lundberg, and
R. Mellander, “Safety of collaborative industrial robots: Certification
possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot concept,” in 2011 IEEE
International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM),
pp. 1–6, Ieee, 2011.
[5] D. Zhao, X. Deng, and J. Yi, “Motion and internal force control for
omnidirectional wheeled mobile robots,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 382–387, 2009.
[6] R. V. Patel, H. A. Talebi, J. Jayender, and F. Shadpey, “A robust
position and force control strategy for 7-dof redundant manipulators,”
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 575–589,
2009.
[7] Y. Li and S. S. Ge, “Human–robot collaboration based on motion in-
tention estimation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 1007–1014, 2013.
[8] W. S. Newman, “Stability and performance limits of interaction con-
trollers,” 1992.
Fig. 14. Zero force control experimental results.
[9] K. S. Kim, A. S. Kwok, G. C. Thomas, and L. Sentis, “Fully omnidirec-
tional compliance in mobile robots via drive-torque sensor feedback,”
in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 4757–4763, IEEE, 2014.
[10] K. S. Kim, T. Llado, and L. Sentis, “Full-body collision detection and
reaction with omnidirectional mobile platforms: a step towards safe
human–robot interaction,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 325–
341, 2016.
[11] A. De Luca, A. Albu-Schaffer, S. Haddadin, and G. Hirzinger, “Collision
detection and safe reaction with the dlr-iii lightweight manipulator arm,”
in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 1623–1630, IEEE, 2006.
[12] C.-h. Wu, “Compliance control of a robot manipulator based on joint
torque servo,” The International journal of robotics research, vol. 4,
no. 3, pp. 55–71, 1985.
[13] K. Ohnishi, M. Shibata, and T. Murakami, “Motion control for advanced
mechatronics,” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 56–67, 1996.
[14] E. Sariyildiz and K. Ohnishi, “A guide to design disturbance observer,”
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 136, no. 2,
2014.
[15] T. Murakami, N. Oda, Y. Miyasaka, and K. Ohnishi, “A motion control
strategy based on equivalent mass matrix in multidegree-of-freedom
manipulator,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 42,
no. 2, pp. 123–130, 1995.
[16] S. Sakaino, T. Sato, and K. Ohnishi, “Force-based disturbance observer
for dynamic force control and a position/force hybrid controller,” IEEJ
transactions on electrical and electronic engineering, vol. 8, no. 5,
pp. 505–514, 2013.
[17] S. Kangwagye and S. Oh, “Robotic stage for human balance disorder
assessment,” in 2020 20th International Conference on Control, Automa-
tion and Systems (ICCAS), pp. 447–452, IEEE, 2020.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sejong Univ. Downloaded on January 28,2022 at 00:59:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.