Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:46:57.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal design and evaluation of a dexterous 4 DoFs haptic device based on delta architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2018

Célestin Préault ,
Houssem Saafi ,
Med Amine Laribi Open the ORCID record for Med Amine Laribi [Opens in a new window]  and
Said Zeghloul
Célestin Préault
Affiliation:
Department of GMSC, Pprime Institute, CNRS - University of Poitiers - ENSMA - UPR 3346, Poitiers, France
Houssem Saafi*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Laboratory of Sousse, National Engineering School of Sousse, University of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
Med Amine Laribi
Affiliation:
Department of GMSC, Pprime Institute, CNRS - University of Poitiers - ENSMA - UPR 3346, Poitiers, France
Said Zeghloul
Affiliation:
Department of GMSC, Pprime Institute, CNRS - University of Poitiers - ENSMA - UPR 3346, Poitiers, France
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper introduces a novel kinematic of a four degrees of freedom (DoFs) device based on Delta architecture. This new device is expected to be used as a haptic device for tele-operation applications. The challenging task was to obtain orientation DoFs from the Delta structure. A fourth leg is added to the Delta structure to convert translations into rotations and to provide translation of the handle. The fourth leg is linked to the base and to the moving platform by two universal joints. The architecture as well as the kinematic model of the new structure, called 4haptic, are presented. Comparisons in terms of kinematic behavior between the 4haptic device and the existing device developed based on spherical parallel manipulator architecture are presented. The results prove the improved behavior of the 4haptic device offering a singularity-free useful workspace, which makes it a suitable candidate to tele-operated system for Minimally Invasive Surgery. The dimensions of the 4haptic device, having the smallest workspace containing a prespecified region in space, are identified based on an optimal dimensional synthesis method.

Keywords

Delta robotHaptic devicesMinimally invasive surgeryTele-operation systemSynthesisGenetic algorithm
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 37 , Special Issue 7: Computational Kinematics Conference, CK 2017 , July 2019 , pp. 1267 - 1288
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gosselin, F., Jouan, T., Brisset, J. and Andriot, C., “Design of a Wearable Haptic Interface for Precise Finger Interactions in Large Virtual Environments,” Proceedings of the World Haptics 1st Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, (2005) pp. 202–207.Google Scholar
Park, W., Kim, L., Cho, H. and Park, S., “Design of Haptic Interface for Brickout Game,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio visual Environments and Games, (2009) pp. 64–68.Google Scholar
Son, H., Franchi, A., Chuang, L., Kim, J., Bulthoff, H. and Giordano, P., “Human-centered design and evaluation of haptic cueing for teleoperation of multiple mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. 43 (2), 1247–1250 (2013).Google ScholarPubMed
Broeren, J., Rydmark, M. and Sunnerhagen, K., “Virtual reality and haptics as a training device for movement rehabilitation after stroke: A single-case study,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 85 (8), 1247–1250 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seo, Y.-W., Chowriappa, A., Guru, K. and Kesavadas, T., “Medical Simulator for Trocar Insertion Procedure,” Proceedings of the Medicine Meets Virtual Reality Conference, San Diego, CA (Feb. 2013).Google Scholar
van den Bedem, L., Hendrix, R., Rosielle, N., Steinbuch, M. and Nijmeijer, H., “Design of a Minimally Invasive Surgical Teleoperated Master-Slave System with Haptic Feedback,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, (2009) pp. 60–65.Google Scholar
Tobergte, A., Helmer, P., Hagn, U., Rouiller, P., Thielmann, S., Grange, S., Albu-Schaffer, A., Conti, F. and Hirzinger, G., “The Sigma. 7 Haptic Interface for Microsurgery: A New Bi-Manual Surgical Console,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2011) pp. 3023–3030.Google Scholar
Nouaille, L., Laribi, M. A., Nelson, C. A., Essomba, T., Poisson, G. and Zeghloul, S., “Design process for robotic medical tool guidance manipulators,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sc. 230 (2), 259–275 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.). Available at http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/davinci_surgical_system/Google Scholar
Wagner, C. R., Force Feedback in Surgery: Physical Constraints and Haptic Information Ph.D. Thesis (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2006).Google Scholar
Sim, H. G., Yip, S. K. and Cheng, C. W., “Equipment and technology in surgical robotics,” World J. Urol. 24, 128–135 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avgousti, V., Christoforou, E. G., Panayides, A. S., Voskarides, S., Novales, C., Nouaille, L., Pattichis, C. S. and Vieyres, P., “Medical telerobotic systems: Current status and future trends,” Biomed. Eng. Online 15 (96) (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westebring-van der Putten, E. P., Goossens, R. H. M., Jakimowicz, J. J. and Dankelman, J., “Haptics in minimally invasive surgery-a review,” Minim. Invasive Therapy Allied Technol. 17 (1), 3–16 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, C., Stylopoulos, N. and Howe, R., “Force Feedback in Surgery: Analysis of Blunt Dissection,” Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interface for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator System, Orlando (2002).Google Scholar
Reiley, C. E., Akinbiyi, T., Burschka, D., Chang, D. C., Okamura, A. M. and Yuh, D. D., “Effects of visual force feedback on robot-assisted surgical task performance,” J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135, 196–202 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaker, A., Mlika, A., Laribi, M. A., Romdhane, L. and Zeghloul, S., “Synthesis of spherical parallel manipulator for dexterous medical task,” Front. Mech. Eng. 7 (2), 150–162 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Meijden, O. A. J. and Schijven, M. P., “The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: A current review,” Surg. Endosc. 23 (6), 1180–1190 (2009).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suwelack, S., Sander, C., Schill, J., Serf, M., Danz, M., Asfour, T., Burger, W., Dillmann, R. and Speidel, S., “Towards open-source, low-cost haptics for surgery simulation,” Stud. Health Technol. Informat. 196, 401–403 (2014).Google ScholarPubMed
Saafi, H., Laribi, M. A. and Zeghloul, S., “Forward kinematic model improvement of a spherical parallel manipulator using an extra sensor,” Mech. Mach. Theory 91, 102–119 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saafi, H., Laribi, M. A. and Zeghloul, S., “Redundantly actuated 3-rrr spherical parallel manipulator used as a haptic device: Improving dexterity and eliminating singularity,” Robotica 33 (5), 1113–1130 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrot, F., Reynau, C. and Fourier, A., “DELTA: A simple and efficient parallel robot,” Robotica 8, 105–109 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saafi, H., Laribi, M. A. and Zeghloul, S., “Optimal torque distribution for a redundant 3-RRR spherical parallel manipulator used as a haptic medical device,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 89, 40–50 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laribi, M. A., Romdhane, L. and Zeghloul, S., “Analysis and dimensional synthesis of the delta robot for a prescribed workspace,” Mech. Mach. Theory 42 (7), 859–870 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The MathWorks Inc., MATLAB and Optimization Toolbox, Release 2016b. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA (2016).Google Scholar
Clavel, R., Device for the movement and positioning of an element in space, US Patent 4,976,582 (1990).Google Scholar