Influence of Unmodelled External Forces on the Quality of Collision Detection

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 980)


Physical Human-Robot Interaction requires collision detection to enable a safe sharing of workspace between humans and robots, mostly using model based algorithms. Majority of robot tasks involve physical interaction with the environment, and consequently the forces occurring during the interaction. This paper presents an experimental testing of influence of unmodelled but intentional forces on the quality of collision detection algorithms. Results from testing of different manipulation and assembly tasks are shown and discussed in terms of their significance to collision detection and similarity with real collisions. Presented results and conclusions from this paper may serve as guidelines for future collision detection related work by offering a better understanding and insight on the relevance of intentional external forces.


Physical Human-Robot Interaction Collision detection Industrial robot 


  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 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2013, 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.
    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
  4. 4.
    De Luca, A., Flacco, F.: Integrated control for pHRI: collision avoidance, detection, reaction and collaboration. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEERAS & EMBS Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2012, pp. 288–295 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamada, Y., Hirasawa, Y., Huang, S., Umetani, Y., Suita, K.: Human-robot contact in the safeguarding space. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech. 2(4), 230–236 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, W., Sun, Y., Huang, Y.: A collision detection system for an assistive robotic. communications in computer and information science, pp. 117–123 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferraguti, F., Secchi, C., Fantuzzi, C.: A tank-based approach to impedance control with variable stiffness. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, pp. 4948–4953 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schindlbeck, C., Haddadin, S.: Unified passivity-based Cartesian force/impedance control for rigid and flexible joint robots via task-energy tanks. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, pp. 440–447 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bahloul, A., Tliba, S., Chitour, Y.: Dynamic parameters identification of an industrial robot with and without payload. In: 18th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, SYSID 2018, IFAC, July 2018, Stockholm, pp. 443–448 < hal-01866381 > (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swevers, J., Verdonck, W., Schutter, J.D.: Dynamic model identification for industrial robots. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 27(5), 58–71 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunot, M., Janot, A., Carillo, F., Garnier, H.: A pragmatic and systematic statistical analysis for identification of industrial robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2017, Munich, Germany, pp. 559–564 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gautier, M.: Numerical calculation of the base inertial parameters of robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1990, pp. 1020–1025 (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gautier, M., Khalil, W.: On the identification of the inertial parameters of robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International on Decision and Control (CDC), 1988, pp. 2264–2269 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gautier, M., Khalil, W.: Direct calculation of minimum set of inertial parameters of serial robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 6, 368–373 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janot, A., Vandanjon, P.-O., Gautier, M.: A generic instrumental variable approach for industrial robot identification. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 22(1), 132–145 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin, J., Gans, N.: Parameter identification for industrial robots with a fast and robust trajectory design approach. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 31, 21–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khosla, P.K., Kanade, T.: Parameter identification of robot dynamics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International on Decision and Control (CDC), 1985, pp. 1754–1760 (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walter, E., Pronzato, L.: Identification of parametric models from experimental data. Communications and Control Engineering, 1st edn. Springer, London (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deniša, M., Gams, A., Ude, A., Petrič, T.: Learning compliant movement primitives through demonstration and statistical generalization. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech. 21(5), 2581–2594 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations