Safe pHRI via the Variable Stiffness Safety-Oriented Mechanism (V2SOM): Simulation and Experimental Validations
Source abstract
Abstract
Robots are gaining a foothold day-by-day in different areas of people’s lives. Collaborative robots (cobots) need to display human-like dynamic performance. Thus, the question of safety during physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) arises. Herein, we propose making serial cobots intrinsically compliant to guarantee safe pHRI via our novel designed device, V2SOM (variable stiffness safety-oriented mechanism). Integrating this new device at each rotary joint of the serial cobot ensures a safe pHRI and reduces the drawbacks of making robots compliant. Thanks to its two continuously linked functional modes—high and low stiffness—V2SOM presents a high inertia decoupling capacity, which is a necessary condition for safe pHRI. The high stiffness mode eases the control without disturbing the safety aspect. Once a human–robot (HR) collision occurs, a spontaneous and smooth shift to low stiffness mode is passively triggered to safely absorb the impact. To highlight V2SOM’s effect in safety terms, we consider two complementary safety criteria: impact force (ImpF) criterion and head injury criterion (HIC) for external and internal damage evaluation of blunt shocks, respectively. A pre-established HR collision model is built in Matlab/Simulink (v2018, MathWorks, France) in order to evaluate the latter criterion. This paper presents the first V2SOM prototype, with quasi-static and dynamic experimental evaluations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics · Robot Manipulation and Learning · Muscle activation and electromyography studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Dept. GMSC, Pprime Institute, CNRS, University of Poitiers, ENSMA, UPR 3346 Poitiers, France
Funding
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues
2. Tobe, F. (2016, January 01). Why Co-Bots Will Be a Huge Innovation and Growth Driver for Robotics Industry. Available online: https://www.aitrends.com/robotics/why-co-bots-will-be-a-huge-innovation-and-growth-driver-for-robotics-industry/.
3. Variable stiffness actuators: The user’s point of view10.1177/0278364914566515 ↗
4. Robot Collisions: A Survey on Detection, Isolation, and Identification10.1109/TRO.2017.2723903 ↗
5. Playing it safe10.1109/MRA.2004.1310938 ↗
6. Adaptive Impedance-controlled Manipulator Based on Collision Detection10.1016/S1000-9361(08)60075-8 ↗
7. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schaffer, A., and Hirzinger, G. (2008, January 22–26). The role of the robot mass and velocity in physical human-robot interaction—Part I: Non-constrained blunt impacts. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nice, France.10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543388 ↗
8. Quantitative Safety Guarantees for Physical Human-Robot Interaction10.1177/02783649030227004 ↗
9. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schaffer, A., Frommberger, M., and Hirzinger, G. (2008, January 19). The role of the robot mass and velocity in physical human-robot interaction—Part II: Constrained blunt impacts. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nice, France.10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543389 ↗
10. Pratt, G.A., and Williamson, M.M. (1995, January 5–9). Series elastic actuators. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
11. Corral, E., García, M., Castejon, C., Meneses, J., and Gismeros, R. (2020). Dynamic Modeling of the Dissipative Contact and Friction Forces of a Passive Biped-Walking Robot. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10072342 ↗
12. Concept of a Series-Parallel Elastic Actuator for a Powered Transtibial Prosthesis10.3390/act2030059 ↗
13. A New Actuation Approach for Human Friendly Robot Design10.1177/0278364904042193 ↗
14. Variable Stiffness Actuators: Review on Design and Components10.1109/TMECH.2015.2501019 ↗
15. A Flexible Multibody Model of a Safety Robot Arm for Experimental Validation and Analysis of Design Parameters
16. Variable stiffness mechanism for human-friendly robots10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2010.01.001 ↗
17. Double actuation architectures for rendering variable impedance in compliant robots: A review10.1016/j.mechatronics.2012.09.011 ↗
18. Variable impedance actuators: A review10.1016/j.robot.2013.06.009 ↗
19. Jafari, A., Tsagarakis, N.G., and Caldwell, D. (2011, January 9–13). AwAS-II: A new Actuator with Adjustable Stiffness based on the novel principle of adaptable pivot point and variable lever ratio. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China.10.1109/ICRA.2011.5979994 ↗
20. Wolf, S., Eiberger, O., and Hirzinger, G. (2011, January 9–13). The DLR FSJ: Energy based design of a variable stiffness joint. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China.10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980303 ↗
21. Eiberger, O., Haddadin, S., Weiß, M., Albu-Schaffer, A., and Hirzinger, G. (2010, January 3). On joint design with intrinsic variable compliance: Derivation of the DLR QA-Joint. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, Alaska.10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509662 ↗
22. Friedl, W., Chalon, M., Reinecke, J., and Grebenstein, M. (2011, January 25–30). FAS A flexible antagonistic spring element for a high performance over. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/IROS.2011.6094569 ↗
23. Ayoubi, Y., Laribi, M.A., Courreges, F., Zeghloul, S., and Arsicault, M. (2016, January 9–14). A complete methodology to design a safety mechanism for prismatic joint implementation. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea.10.1109/IROS.2016.7759071 ↗
24. Optimal control of antagonistic muscle stiffness during voluntary movements10.1007/BF00197315 ↗
25. A Nonlinear Stiffness Safe Joint Mechanism Design for Human Robot Interaction10.1115/1.4001666 ↗
26. Park, J.-J., Lee, Y.-J., Song, J.-B., and Kim, H.-S. (2008, January 19–23). Safe joint mechanism based on nonlinear stiffness for safe human-robot collision. Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, CA, USA.10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543529 ↗
27. Analysis and Synthesis of the Bidirectional Antagonistic Variable Stiffness Mechanism10.1109/TMECH.2014.2321428 ↗
28. The kinematics of the rotary into helical gear transmission10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.10.017 ↗
29. Ayoubi, Y., Laribi, M.A., Arsicault, M., Zeghloul, S., and Courreges, F. (2019). Mechanical Device with Variable Compliance for Rotary Motion Transmission. (WO 2019/043068 A1).
30. Ayoubi, Y., Laribi, M.A., Zeghloul, S., and Arsicault, M. (2018). Design of V2SOM: The safety mechanism for cobot’s rotary joints. IFToMM Symposium on Mechanism Design for Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-00365-4_18 ↗
31. Payne, D.A.R., and Patel, S. (2017, January 01). Levels Of Consciousness In Relation To Head Injury Criteria. Available online: http://www.eurailsafe.net/subsites/operas/HTML/appendix/Table13.htm.
32. (2015, June 03). HIC Tolerance Levels Correlated To Brain Injury. Available online: http://www.eurailsafe.net/subsites/operas/HTML/appendix/Table14.htm.
33. Newman, J.A. (1986, January 2–4). A generalized acceleration model for brain injury threshold (GAMBIT). Proceedings of the International IRCOBI Conference, Zurich, Switzerland.
34. Experimental tests in human–robot collision evaluation and characterization of a new safety index for robot operation10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2014.06.004 ↗
35. Assessing the Danger of Robot Impact10.1109/MRA.2009.934824 ↗