Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T15:23:22.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nuclear bilateral telerobotic systems: performance comparison and future implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2024

Harun Tugal Open the ORCID record for Harun Tugal [Opens in a new window] ,
Fumiaki Abe ,
Masaki Sakamoto ,
Shu Shirai ,
Ipek Caliskanelli ,
Wenxing Liu ,
Hector Marin-Reyes ,
Kaiqiang Zhang  and
Robert Skilton
Harun Tugal*
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Fumiaki Abe
Affiliation:
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and secondees at RACE/UKAEA, Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Masaki Sakamoto
Affiliation:
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and secondees at RACE/UKAEA, Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Shu Shirai
Affiliation:
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and secondees at RACE/UKAEA, Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Ipek Caliskanelli
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Wenxing Liu
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Hector Marin-Reyes
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Kaiqiang Zhang
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
Robert Skilton
Affiliation:
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Remote Applications in Challenging Environments (RACE), Culham Campus, Abingdon, UK
*
Corresponding author: Harun Tugal; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive evaluation of two nuclear-rated bilateral telerobotic systems, Telbot and Dexter, focusing on critical performance metrics such as effort transparency, stiffness, and backdrivability. Despite the absence of standardized evaluation methodologies for these systems, this study identifies key gaps by experimentally assessing the quantitative performance of both systems under controlled conditions. The results reveal that Telbot exhibits higher stiffness, but at the cost of greater effort transmission, whereas Dexter offers smoother backdrivability. Furthermore, positional discrepancies were observed during the tests, particularly in nonlinear positional displacements. These findings highlight the need for standardized evaluation methods, contributing to the development, manufacturing, and procurement processes of future bilateral telerobotic systems.

Keywords

Bilateral teleoperationperformance measurementsstandardization
Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , First View , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Gani, A., Pickering, O., Ellis, C., Sabri, O. and Pucher, P., “Impact of haptic feedback on surgical training outcomes: A randomised controlled trial of haptic versus non-haptic immersive virtual reality training,” Ann. Med. Surg. 83, 104734 (2022).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louca, J., Eder, K., Vrublevskis, J. and Tzemanaki, A., “Impact of haptic feedback in high latency teleoperation for space applications,” ACM Trans. Human-Robot Interact. 13(2), 1–21 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvish, K., Penco, L., Ramos, J., Cisneros, R., Pratt, J., Yoshida, E., Ivaldi, S. and Pucci, D., “Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 39(3), 1706–1727 (2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Cheng, Y., Cheng, Y., Zhang, Q. and Lu, K., “Nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) based shared autonomy for bilateral teleoperation in CFETR remote handling,” Nucl. Eng. Technol. 56(10), 4437–4445 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tugal, H., Carrasco, J., Falcon, P. and Barreiro, A., “Stability analysis of bilateral teleoperation with bounded and monotone environments via Zames-Falb multipliers,” IEEE Trans. Ctrl. Syst. Technol. 25(4), 1331–1344 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, B., Salehizadeh, M., Munawar, A., Taylor, R. H. and Tumerdem, U., “Admittance switching for stability and transparency in human-robot collaborative microsurgery,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 9(2), 1891–1898 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, D., Li, Y. and Li, H., “Factors affecting trust in the transparency index for stable and intuitive physical human-robot cooperation,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Ctrl. 46(8),1563–1578 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beerens, R., Heck, D., Saccon, A. and Nijmeijer, H., “The effect of controller design on delayed bilateral teleoperation performance: An experimental comparison,” IEEE Trans. Ctrl. Syst. Technol. 28(5), 1727–1740 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidari, A., Navimipour, N. J. and Otsuki, A., “Cloud-Based Non-Destructive Characterization,” In: Non-Destructive Material Characterization Methods (Elsevier, 2024) pp. 727–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidari, A., Navimipour, N. J. and Unal, M., “Applications of ML/DL in the management of smart cities and societies based on new trends in information technologies: A systematic literature review,” Sustain. Cities Soc. 85, 104089 (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samur, E., Performance Metrics for Haptic Interfaces (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buongiorno, D., Chiaradia, D., Marcheschi, S., Solazzi, M. and Frisoli, A., “Multi-dofs exoskeleton-based bilateral teleoperation with the time-domain passivity approach,” Robotica 37(9), 1641–1662 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, T. L., “Telerobotic Response Requirements,” In: IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (1990) pp. 113–120.Google Scholar
Uebel, M., Ali, M. and Minis, I., “The effect of bandwidth on telerobot system performance,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 24(2), 342–348 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, V. and Astley, O. R., “Performance Measures for Haptic Interfaces,” In: Robotics research: The seventh international symposium, London, Springer (1996) pp. 195–206.Google Scholar
Çavuşoğlu, M. C., Feygin, D. and Tendick, F., “A critical study of the mechanical and electrical properties of the phantom haptic interface and improvements for highperformance control,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environ. 11(6), 555–568 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taati, B., Tahmasebi, A. M. and Hashtrudi-Zaad, K., “Experimental identification and analysis of the dynamics of a PHANToM premium 1.5A haptic device,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environ. 17(4), 327–343 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. and Kawashima, K., “Experimental comparison of backdrivability for time-delayed telerobotics,” Ctrl. Eng. Pract. 28, 90–96 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y., Tang, Y., Yang, B., Zheng, W., Liu, S. and Liu, C., “A Review of Bilateral Teleoperation Control Strategies with Soft Environment,” In: 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics, ICARM (2021) pp. 459–464.Google Scholar
Nahri, S. N. F., Du, S. and Van Wyk, B. J., “A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 104(1), 13 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görgülü, I., Dede, M. I. C. and Carbone, G., “Experimental structural stiffness analysis of a surgical haptic master device manipulator,” J. Med. Devices 15(1), 011110 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malysz, P. and Sirouspour, S., “Nonlinear and filtered force/position mappings in bilateral teleoperation with application to enhanced stiffness discrimination,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 25(5), 1134–1149 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, G. A., Williamson, M. M., Dillworth, P., Pratt, J. and Wright, A., “Stiffness isn’t Everything,” In: Experimental Robotics IV: The 4th International Symposium, California, Berlin Heidelberg, Stanford, Springer (1997) pp. 253–262.Google Scholar
Salcudean, S. E. and Vlaar, T. D., “On the emulation of stiff walls and static friction with a magnetically levitated input/output device,” J. Dyn. Sys. Measure. Ctrl. 119(1), 127–132 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skilton, R., Hamilton, N., Howell, R., Lamb, C. and Rodriguez, J., “MASCOT 6: Achieving high dexterity tele-manipulation with a modern architectural design for fusion remote maintenance,” Fusion Eng. Des. 136, 575–578 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, R., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Xu, W., Ryu, J. H. and Wang, D., “Co-actuation: A method for achieving high stiffness and low inertia for haptic devices,” IEEE Trans. Hapt. 13(2), 312–324 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, L. A. and Hunter, I. W., “A perceptual analysis of stiffness,” Exp. Brain. Res. 79(1), 150–156 (1990).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosselin, F., Ferlay, F. and Janot, A., “Development of a new backdrivable actuator for haptic interfaces and collaborative robots,” Actuators 5(2), 17 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Liu, W., Wang, K., Kawashima, K. and Magid, E., “A cable-pulley transmission mechanism for surgical robot with backdrivable capability,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 49, 328–334 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wälischmiller, W. and Lee, H.-Y., Development and Application of the Telbot System (Springer, Vienna, 1997) pp. 399–408.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization 1998. Manipulating Industrial Robots - Performance Criteria and Related Test Methods Technical Report, ISO.Google Scholar
Carbone, G., “Stiffness Analysis for Grasping Tasks,” In: Grasping in Robotics (Springer, London, 2013) pp. 17–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, D. C., McGowan, C. P., Blum, K. P. and Ting, L. H., “Yank: The time derivative of force is an important biomechanical variable in sensorimotor systems,” J. Exp. Biol. 222(18), (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimchik, A., Pashkevich, A. and Chablat, D., “Fundamentals of manipulator stiffness modeling using matrix structural analysis,” Mech. Mach. Theory 133, 365–394 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar