1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems
  4. Volume 5, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

Volume 5, 2022

Contact and Physical Interaction

Abstract

This article reviews approaches to controlling robots undergoing physical contact and dynamic interaction with objects in the world. Conventional motion control is compared with a hybrid combination of position and force control. Several challenges are reviewed, most importantly the problems of instability: dynamic instability due to coupling, and static instability due to exerting force. Energetically passive interactive dynamics addresses the former; a minimum stiffness proportional to the force exerted addresses the latter. Actuators, which dominate the robot's interactive dynamics, are briefly surveyed, including series elastic, variable-stiffness, and emerging designs. A comparison with human performance is made. A bioinspired approach to controlling interactive dynamics (mechanical impedance or admittance) is reviewed. Robot configuration profoundly modulates apparent inertia, whereas force feedback control has minimal influence. Superimposing first-order mechanical impedances simplifies controlling many degrees of freedom. It manages redundancy while preserving passivity (unlike null-space projection methods) and enables seamless operation into and out of singular configurations.

Keyword(s): compositionality, coupled instability, energetic passivity, interactive dynamics, mechanical admittance, mechanical impedance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-042920-010933
2022-05-03
2024-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/5/1/annurev-control-042920-010933.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-042920-010933&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Hogan N 2017. Physical interaction via dynamic primitives. Geometric and Numerical Foundations of Movements JP Laumond, JB Lassere, N Mansard 269–99 Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Whitney DE. 1969. Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prostheses. IEEE Trans. Man-Mach. Syst. 10:47–53
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Whitney DE. 1972. The mathematics of coordinated control of prosthetic arms and manipulators. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 94:303–9
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Klein CA, Huang CH. 1983. Review of pseudoinverse control for use with kinematically redundant manipulators. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. SMC-13 245–50
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N. 1991. Integrable solutions of kinematic redundancy via impedance control. Int. J. Robot. Res. 10:481–91
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Shamir T, Yomdin Y. 1988. Repeatability of redundant manipulators: mathematical solution of the problem. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 33:1004–9
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    De Luca A, Lanari L, Oriolo G 1992. Control of redundant robots on cyclic trajectories. Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1500–6 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Siciliano B. 1990. Kinematic control of redundant robot manipulators: a tutorial. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 3:201–12
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Baillieul J. 1985. Kinematic programming alternatives for redundant manipulators. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation722–28 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Faverjon B, Tournassoud P. 1987. A local based approach for path planning of manipulators with a high number of degrees of freedom. Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation1152–59 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Nakamura Y, Hanafusa H, Yoshikawa T. 1987. Task-priority based redundancy control of robot manipulators. Int. J. Robot. Res. 6:3–15
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Yoshikawa T. 1985. Manipulability of robotic mechanisms. Int. J. Robot. Res. 4:439–46
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Lachner J, Schettino V, Allmendinger F, Fiore MD, Ficuciello F et al. 2020. The influence of coordinates in robotic manipulability analysis. Mech. Mach. Theory 146:103722
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Khatib O. 1987. A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: the operational space formulation. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 3:43–53
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Verdi D. 2017. A compositional approach to robotic impedance control MS Thesis, Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge, MA:
  16. 16. 
    Raibert MH, Craig JJ. 1981. Hybrid position/force control of manipulators. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 102:126–33
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Mason MT. 1981. Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 11:418–32
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Ortenzi V, Stolkin R, Kuo J, Mistry M. 2017. Hybrid motion/force control: a review. Adv. Robot. 31:1102–13
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Stewart DE. 2011. Dynamics with Inequalities Philadelphia: Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.
  20. 20. 
    Escande A, Mansard N, Wieber PB. 2014. Hierarchical quadratic programming: fast online humanoid-robot motion generation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33:1006–28
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Posa M, Cantu C, Tedrake R. 2014. A direct method for trajectory optimization of rigid bodies through contact. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33:69–81
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Kanoun O, Lamiraux F, Wieber PB. 2011. Kinematic control of redundant manipulators: generalizing the task-priority framework to inequality task. IEEE Trans. Robot. 27:785–92
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Lynch KM, Park FC. 2019. Modern Robotics: Mechanics, Planning, and Control Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  24. 24. 
    Duffy J. 1990. The fallacy of modern hybrid control theory that is based on “orthogonal complements” of twist and wrench spaces. J. Robot. Syst. 7:139–44
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Whitney DE. 1977. Force feedback control of manipulator fine motions. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 99:91–97
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Paul R. 1987. Problems and research issues associated with the hybrid control of force and displacement. Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation1966–71 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Colgate JE, Hogan N. 1988. Robust control of dynamically interacting systems. Int. J. Control 48:65–88
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Rancourt D, Hogan N. 2001. Stability in force-production tasks. J. Mot. Behav. 33:193–204
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Hosford LA. 2016. Development and testing of an impedance controller on an anthropomorphic robot for extreme environment operations MS Thesis, Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge, MA:
  30. 30. 
    Colgate E. 1989. On the intrinsic limitations of force feedback compliance controllers. Robotics Research—1989 K Youcef-Toumi, H Kazerooni 23–30 New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Lawrence DA. 1989. Actuator limitations on achievable manipulator impedance. Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1560–65 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Pratt GA, Williamson MM. 1995. Series elastic actuators. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems: Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots 1399–406 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Williamson MM. 1995. Series elastic actuators MS Thesis, Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge, MA:
  34. 34. 
    Paine N, Oh S, Sentis L 2014. Design and control considerations for high-performance series elastic actuators. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 19:1080–91
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Vallery H, Veneman J, van Asseldonk E, Ekkelenkamp R, Buss M, van Der Kooij H. 2008. Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 15:360–69
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Buerger SP, Hogan N. 2007. Complementary stability and loop shaping for improved human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 23:232–44
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Sergi F, O'Malley MK. 2015. On the stability and accuracy of high stiffness rendering in non-backdrivable actuators through series elasticity. Mechatronics 26:64–75
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Seok S, Wang A, Chuah MY, Hyun DJ, Lee J et al. 2015. Design principles for energy-efficient legged locomotion and implementation on the MIT Cheetah robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 20:1117–29
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Lawrence DA. 1988. Impedance control stability properties in common implementations. Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 21185–90 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Asada H, Youcef-Toumi K. 1984. Analysis and design of a direct-drive arm with a five-bar-link parallel drive mechanism. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 106:225–30
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Hogan N, Krebs HI, Charnnarong J, Srikrishna P, Sharon A. 1992. MIT-MANUS: a workstation for manual therapy and training. I. Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication161–65 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Wensing PM, Wang A, Seok S, Otten D, Lang J, Kim S 2017. Proprioceptive actuator design in the MIT Cheetah: impact mitigation and high-bandwidth physical interaction for dynamic legged robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 33:509–22
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Vanderborght B, Albu-Schäffer A, Bicchi A, Burdet E, Caldwell DG et al. 2013. Variable impedance actuators: a review. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61:1601–14
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Grioli G, Wolf S, Garabini M, Catalano M, Burdet E et al. 2015. Variable stiffness actuators: the user's point of view. Int. J. Robot. Res. 34:727–43
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Wolf S, Grioli G, Eiberger O, Friedl W, Grebenstein M et al. 2016. Variable stiffness actuators: review on design and components. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 21:2418–30
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Braun D, Howard M, Vijayakumar S 2012. Optimal variable stiffness control: formulation and application to explosive movement tasks. Auton. Robots 33:237–53
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Braun DJ, Petit F, Huber F, Haddadin S, Van Der Smagt P et al. 2013. Robots driven by compliant actuators: optimal control under actuation constraints. IEEE Trans. Robot. 29:1085–1101
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Sutrisno A, Braun DJ. 2020. How to run 50% faster without external energy. Sci. Adv. 6:eaay1950
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Cobb M. 2002. Exorcizing the animal spirits: Jan Swammerdam on nerve function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci 3:395–400
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    English C, Russell D. 1999. Implementation of variable joint stiffness through antagonistic actuation using rolamite springs. Mech. Mach. Theory 34:27–40
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    English CE, Russell D. 1999. Mechanics and stiffness limitations of a variable stiffness actuator for use in prosthetic limbs. Mech. Mach. Theory 34:7–25
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Daerden F, Lefeber D. 2002. Pneumatic artificial muscles: actuators for robotics and automation. Eur. J. Mech. Environ. Eng. 47:11–21
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Mengacci R, Garabini M, Grioli G, Catalano M, Bicchi A. 2021. Overcoming the torque/stiffness range tradeoff in antagonistic variable stiffness actuators. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 26:3186–97
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Groothuis SS, Rusticelli G, Zucchelli A, Stramigioli S, Carloni R. 2014. The variable stiffness actuator vsaUT-II: mechanical design, modeling, and identification. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 19:589–97
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Barrett E, Fumagalli M, Carloni R. 2016. Elastic energy storage in leaf springs for a lever-arm based variable stiffness actuator. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems537–42 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Jafari A, Tsagarakis NG, Caldwell DG. 2013. A novel intrinsically energy efficient actuator with adjustable stiffness (AwAS). IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 18:355–65
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Visser LC, Carloni R, Stramigioli S 2011. Energy-efficient variable stiffness actuators. IEEE Trans. Robot. 27:865–75
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Morita T, Sugano S. 1995. Development of one-DOF robot arm equipped with mechanical impedance adjuster. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems: Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots 1407–12 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Morita T, Sugano S. 1996. Development of 4-DOF manipulator using mechanical impedance adjuster. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 42902–7 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Braun DJ, Chalvet V, Chong TH, Apte SS, Hogan N 2019. Variable stiffness spring actuators for low-energy-cost human augmentation. IEEE Trans. Robot. 35:1435–49
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Rus D, Tolley MT. 2015. Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nature 521:467–75
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Cianchetti M, Laschi C, Menciassi A, Dario P 2018. Biomedical applications of soft robotics. Nat. Rev. Mater. 3:143–53
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Carpi F, De Rossi D, Kornbluh R, Pelrine R, Sommer-Larsen P. 2008. Dielectric Elastomers as Electromechanical Transducers Oxford, UK: Elsevier
  64. 64. 
    Baughman RH, Cui C, Zakhidov AA, Iqbal Z, Barisci JN et al. 1999. Carbon nanotube actuators. Science 284:1340–44
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Bar-Cohen Y 2004. Electroactive Polymer (EAP) Actuators as Artificial Muscles: Reality, Potential, and Challenges Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2nd ed..
  66. 66. 
    Mather PT, Luo X, Rousseau IA. 2009. Shape memory polymer research. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 39:445–71
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Tolley MT, Shepherd RF, Karpelson M, Bartlett NW, Galloway KC et al. 2014. An untethered jumping soft robot. 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems561–66 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Camp T, Figliola R. 2011. Fluid mechanics. Mechanobiology Handbook J Nagatomi 23–44 Boca Raton, FL: CRC
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    White FM. 2011. Fluid Mechanics New York: McGraw-Hill, 7th ed..
  70. 70. 
    Shepard RN, Metzler J. 2013. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Readings in Cognitive Science: A Perspective from Psychology and Artificial Intelligence A Collins, EE Smith 598–99 San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Lee H, Krebs HI, Hogan N. 2014. Multivariable dynamic ankle mechanical impedance with active muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22:971–81
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Lee H, Krebs HI, Hogan N. 2014. Multivariable dynamic ankle mechanical impedance with relaxed muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22:1104–14
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Lee H, Hogan N 2015. Time-varying ankle mechanical impedance during human locomotion. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23:755–64
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Rouse EJ, Hargrove LJ, Perreault EJ, Kuiken TA. 2014. Estimation of human ankle impedance during the stance phase of walking. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22:870–78
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Lipps DB, Baillargeon EM, Ludvig D, Perreault EJ 2020. Quantifying the multidimensional impedance of the shoulder during volitional contractions. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 48:2354–69
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Tsuji T, Morasso PG, Goto K, Ito K 1995. Human hand impedance characteristics during maintained posture. Biol. Cybern. 72:475–85
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Dolan JM, Friedman MB, Nagurka ML. 1993. Dynamic and loaded impedance components in the maintenance of human arm posture. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 23:698–709
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Yoshioka T, Milner TE, Kawato M. 2000. A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. J. Biomech. 33:1705–9
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Lacquaniti F, Carrozzo M, Borghese NA 1993. Time-varying mechanical behavior of multijointed arm in man. J. Neurophysiol. 69:1443–64
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Bennett DJ, Hollerbach JM, Xu Y, Hunter IW. 1992. Time-varying stiffness of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement. Exp. Brain Res. 88:433–42
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Lee H, Hogan N 2016. Energetic passivity of the human ankle joint. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 24:1416–25
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Shahbazi M, Atashzar SF, Tavakoli M, Patel RV. 2018. Position-force domain passivity of the human arm in telerobotic systems. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 23:552–62
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Rancourt D, Hogan N 2009. The biomechanics of force production. Progress in Motor Control: A Multidisciplinary Perspective D Sternad 645–61 Boston: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Powers JD, Malingen SA, Regnier M, Daniel TL. 2021. The sliding filament theory since Andrew Huxley: multiscale and multidisciplinary muscle research. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 50:373–400
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Nishikawa KC, Monroy JA, Uyeno TE, Yeo SH, Pai DK, Lindstedt SL. 2012. Is titin a “winding filament”? A new twist on muscle contraction. Proc. R. Soc. B 279:981–90
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, Siegelbaum SA, Hudspeth AJ. 2013. Principles of Neural Science New York: McGraw-Hill Med, 5th ed..
  87. 87. 
    Burdet E, Franklin DW, Milner TE 2019. Human Robotics: Neuromechanics and Motor Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  88. 88. 
    Berardelli A, Hallett M, Rothwell JC, Agostino R, Manfredi M et al. 1996. Single-joint rapid arm movements in normal subjects and in patients with motor disorders. Brain 119:661–74
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Lewis GN, Perreault EJ, MacKinnon CD. 2005. The influence of perturbation duration and velocity on the long-latency response to stretch in the biceps muscle. Exp. Brain Res. 163:361–69
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Lewis GN, MacKinnon CD, Trumbower R, Perreault EJ. 2010. Co-contraction modifies the stretch reflex elicited in muscles shortened by a joint perturbation. Exp. Brain Res. 207:39–48
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Hu X, Ludvig D, Murray WM, Perreault EJ 2017. Using feedback control to reduce limb impedance during forceful contractions. Sci. Rep. 7:9317
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Kurtzer I, Crevecoeur F, Scott SH 2014. Fast feedback control involves two independent processes utilizing knowledge of limb dynamics. J. Neurophysiol. 111:1631–45
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M. 2001. The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature 414:446–49
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Franklin DW, Liaw G, Milner TE, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M 2007. Endpoint stiffness of the arm is directionally tuned to instability in the environment. J. Neurosci. 27:7705–16
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Lacquaniti F, Borghese NA, Carrozzo M. 1991. Transient reversal of the stretch reflex in human arm muscles. J. Neurophysiol. 66:939–54
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Perreault EJ, Kirsch RF, Crago PE. 2001. Effects of voluntary force generation on the elastic components of endpoint stiffness. Exp. Brain Res. 141:312–23
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Hu X, Murray WM, Perreault EJ. 2011. Muscle short-range stiffness can be used to estimate the endpoint stiffness of the human arm. J. Neurophysiol. 105:1633–41
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Hogan N. 1987. Modularity and causality in physical system modeling. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 109:384–91
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Anderson RJ, Spong MW 1989. Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 34:494–501
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Niemeyer G, Slotine JJE. 1991. Stable adaptive teleoperation. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 16:152–62
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Niemeyer G, Slotine JJE. 2004. Telemanipulation with time delays. Int. J. Robot. Res. 23:873–90
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Colgate JE. 1993. Robust impedance shaping telemanipulation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9:374–84
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Spong MW. 2022. An historical perspective on the control of robotic manipulators. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 5:1–31
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Newman WS, Zhang Y. 1994. Stable interaction control and coulomb friction compensation using natural admittance control. J. Robot. Syst. 11:3–11
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Albu-Schäffer A, Ott C, Frese U, Hirzinger G 2003. Cartesian impedance control of redundant robots: recent results with the DLR-light-weight-arms. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 33704–9 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Ott C, Mukherjee R, Nakamura Y. 2010. Unified impedance and admittance control. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation554–61 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Hogan N. 1985. Impedance control: an approach to manipulation: part I—theory. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Hogan N. 1985. Impedance control: an approach to manipulation: part III—applications. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107:17–24
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Hermus J, Lachner J, Verdi D, Hogan N. 2022. Exploiting redundancy to facilitate physical interaction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 38:599–615
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Slotine J-JE, Li W 1991. Applied Nonlinear Control Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  111. 111. 
    Khalil HK. 2002. Nonlinear Systems Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 3rd ed..
  112. 112. 
    Wyatt JL Jr., Chua LO, Gannett JW, Goknar IC, Green DN 1981. Energy concepts in the state-space theory of nonlinear n-ports: part I—passivity. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst CAS-28:48–61
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    van der Schaft A. 2020. Port-Hamiltonian modeling for control. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 3:393–416
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Virga EG. 2015. Rayleigh-Lagrange formalism for classical dissipative systems. Phys. Rev. E 91:013203
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Hogan N. 1988. On the stability of manipulators performing contact tasks. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 4:677–86
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Bellman RE. 1957. Dynamic Programming Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  117. 117. 
    Dietrich A, Ott C, Albu-Schäffer A. 2015. An overview of null space projections for redundant, torque-controlled robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 34:1385–400
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Dietrich A, Ott C, Stramigioli S. 2016. Passivation of projection-based null space compliance control via energy tanks. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 1:184–91
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Hogan N. 2014. A general actuator model based on nonlinear equivalent networks. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 19:1929–39
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Koditschek DE. 2021. What is robotics? Why do we need it and how can we get it?. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 4:1–33
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Lachner J, Allmendinger F, Hobert E, Hogan N, Stramigioli S 2021. Energy budgets for coordinate invariant robot control in physical human–robot interaction. Int. J. Robot. Res. 40:968–85
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Crandall SH, Karnopp DC, Kurtz EF, Pridmore-Brown DC. 1982. Dynamics of Mechanical and Electronical Systems New York: McGraw-Hill
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-042920-010933
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error