Comparison of Control Techniques in a Weight Lifting Exoskeleton

Abstract

The back pain is the most common injury in human activities where heavy objects must be lifted or must be suspended for a long time. A weight lifting exoskeleton also known as force augmentation exoskeleton is designed to reduce the strain on the back and the limbs and reduce the risk to suffer injuries. On the other hand, different kinds of controllers have been implemented to achieve whit this goal, for example, a conventional PD Control, PD Control with Gravity Compensation, PD Control with Adaptive Desired Gravity Compensation and PD Control with Robust Compensator. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the performance from the previously cited controllers used to reduce the strain in the back, through the implementation of each controller in a three Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) exoskeleton powered by pneumatic muscle actuators; some numerical simulations as well as experimental trials have been conducted and three different performance indices were used in order to determine the effectiveness of each one with respect to the simple PD controller when the mass to be lifted is unknown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. [1]

    Chen S, Chen Z, Yao B, Zhu X C, Zhu S Q, Wang Q F, Song Y. Adaptive robust cascade force control of 1-DOF hydraulic exoskeleton for human performance augmentation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2016, 22, 589–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. [2]

    Kim H, Shin Y J, Kim J. Design and locomotion control of a hydraulic lower extremity exoskeleton for mobility augmentation. Mechatronics, 2017, 46, 32–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. [3]

    Toyama S, Yamamoto G. Development of Wearable-Agri-Robot ∼ mechanism for agricultural work.# IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009, 5801–5806.

    Google Scholar 

  4. [4]

    Saccares L, Sarakoglou I, Tsagarakis N G. iT-Knee: An exoskeleton with ideal torque transmission interface for ergonomic power augmentation. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, South Korea, 2016, 780–786.

    Google Scholar 

  5. [5]

    Beil J, Perner G, Asfour T. Design and control of the lower limb exoskeleton KIT-EXO-1. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Singapore, Singapore, 2015, 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  6. [6]

    Kim S, Bae J. Force-mode control of rotary series elastic actuators in a lower extremity exoskeleton using model-inverse time delay control. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2017, 22, 1392–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. [7]

    Kazerooni H, Racine J L, Huang L, Steger R. On the control of the berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX). Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 2005, 4353–4360.

    Google Scholar 

  8. [8]

    Yamamoto K, Hyodo K, Ishii M, Matsuo T. Development of power assisting suit for assisting nurse labor. JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing, 2002, 45, 703–711.

    Google Scholar 

  9. [9]

    Goljat R, Babič J, Petrič T, Peternel L, Morimoto J. Power-augmentation control approach for arm exoskeleton based on human muscular manipulability. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, Singapore, 2017, 5929–5934.

    Google Scholar 

  10. [10]

    Maeda D, Tominaga K, Oku T, Pham H T T, Saeki S, Uemura M, Hirai H, Miyazaki F. Muscle synergy analysis of human adaptation to a variable-stiffness exoskeleton: Human walk with a knee exoskeleton with pneumatic artificial muscles. 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Osaka, Japan, 2012, 638–644.

    Google Scholar 

  11. [11]

    Duong M K, Cheng H, Tran H T, Jing Q. Minimizing human-exoskeleton interaction force using compensation for dynamic uncertainty error with adaptive RBF network. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 2016, 82, 413–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. [12]

    Concha A, González-Sánchez F E, Ramírez-Velasco E, Sánchez M, Gadi S K. Comparison of control algorithms using a generalized model for a human with an exoskeleton. Journal of Applied Science & Process Engineering, 2018, 5, 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. [13]

    Kelly R, Santibañez-Davila V, Loria-Perez J A. Control of Robot Manipulators in Joint Space. Springer, London, UK, 2005, 133–377.

    Google Scholar 

  14. [14]

    Liu H, Li D, Xi J, Zhong Y. Robust attitude controller design for miniature quadrotors. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2016, 26, 681–696.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. [15]

    Duarte-Mermoud M A, Prieto R A. Performance index for quality response of dynamical systems. ISA Transactions, 2004, 43, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

These research studies have been developed out of a series of simulation and experimental tests inside of an equipped laboratory. We are grateful with the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) and the UMI-LAFMIA-CINVESTAV 3175 CNRS for all support provided to realize this project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesus Ricardo López-Gutiérrez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosales-Díaz, I., López-Gutiérrez, J.R., Suárez, A.E.Z. et al. Comparison of Control Techniques in a Weight Lifting Exoskeleton. J Bionic Eng 16, 663–673 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-019-0053-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • augmenting force device
  • exoskeleton robot
  • pneumatic artificial muscles
  • adaptive control
  • robust control