Advertisement

Fully Integrated Torque-Based Collision Detection in Periodic Tasks for Industrial Robots with Closed Control Architecture

Conference paper
  • 1.4k Downloads
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 67)

Abstract

This paper presents an implementation and experimental validation of an algorithm for collision detection for industrial robots performing repetitive tasks. Collisions are detected by using two decision rules, one of which compares current-based estimated torques with previously calculated reference limits, while the second rule detects changes in torque dynamics. Reference limits represent experimentally acquired torque values processed in order to determine measurement tolerances based on dynamics of the signal, as well as to adapt to different sampling times. The main contribution of the paper is the algorithm which is entirely implemented on robot’s controller with closed control architecture, and only requires PC for initial offline processing of reference torques. It can be adapted for use on various brands of industrial robots, and it is universal to different robot configurations.

Keywords

Industrial robot Collision detection Human-robot collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work on this project was partly supported by the Ministry of education, science, and technological development, Republic of Serbia, grant No. TR35003.

References

  1. 1.
    Geravand, M., Flacco, F., De Luca, A.: Human-robot physical interaction and collaboration using an industrial robot with a closed control architecture. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4000–4007 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Luca, A., Albu-Schäffer, A., Haddadin, S., Hirzinger, G.: Collision detection and safe reaction with the DLR-III lightweight manipulator arm. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2006), Beijing, China, pp. 1623–1630 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., De Luca, A., Hirzinger, G.: Collision detection and reaction: a contribution to safe physical human robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3356–3363 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erden, M., Tomiyama, T.: Human-intent detection and physically interactive control of a robot without force sensors. IEEE Trans. Rob. 26(2), 370–382 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Luca, A., Mattone, R.: Sensorless robot collision detection and hybrid force/motion control. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2005), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 1011–1016 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pastor, P., Righetti, L., Kalakrishnan, M., Schaal, S.: Online movement adaptation based on previous sensor experiences. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, pp. 365–371 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuhn, S., Gecks, T., Henrich, D.: Velocity control for safe robot guidance based on fused vision and force/torque data. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, pp. 485–492 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn, S., Henrich, D.: Fast vision-based minimum distance determination between known and unknown objects. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2186–2191 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flacco, F., Kroger, T., De Luca, A., Khatib, O.: A depth space approach to human-robot collision avoidance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 338–345 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinzmann, J., Zelinsky, A.: Quantitative safety guarantees for physical human-robot interaction. Int. J. Rob. Res. 22(7–8), 479–504 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Luca, A., Flacco, F.: Integrated control for pHRI: collision avoidance, detection, reaction and collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEERAS & EMBS Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 288–295 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Hirzinger, G.: Safe physical human-robot interaction: measurements, analysis and new insights. In: International Symposium on Robotics Research (ISRR2007), Hiroshima, Japan (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Hirzinger, G.: Safety evaluation of physical human-robot interaction via crash-testing. In: Robotics: Science and Systems Conference (RSS2007), Atlanta, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zinn, M., Khatib, O., Roth, B., Salisbury, J.K.: Playing it safe—human-friendly robots. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 11, 12–21 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamada, Y., Hirasawa, Y., Huand, S., Umetani, Y.: Fail-safe human/robot contact in the safety space. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, pp. 59–64 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETF Robotics Laboratory, Signals and Systems Department, School of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations