Collision detection and external force estimation for robot manipulators using a composite momentum observer

Benaoumeur Ibari; Mourad Hebali; Baghdadi Rezali; Menaouer Bennaoum; Benaoumeur Ibari; Mourad Hebali; Baghdadi Rezali; Menaouer Bennaoum

doi:10.3934/electreng.2024011

AIMS Electronics and Electrical Engineering

2024, Volume 8, Issue 2: 247-264. doi: 10.3934/electreng.2024011

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Collision detection and external force estimation for robot manipulators using a composite momentum observer

Department of Electrotechnical, University of Mustapha Stambouli Mascara, Mascara, 29000, Algeria

Academic Editor: Mihailo Ristic

Received: 16 March 2024 Revised: 23 April 2024 Accepted: 30 April 2024 Published: 10 May 2024

The collision detection and estimation of external forces for robot manipulators are essential to ensure compliance and safety in the interaction between the robot and the environment or humans. The focus of this paper was to design a hybrid approach for collision detection between robots and their environment, and further to estimate external forces acting on a robot manipulator without the need for additional sensors. The current collision detection methods using observers are still suffering from the problem of an unavoidable trade-off between the estimation sensitivity and the reduction of the peaking value at the initial time. To satisfy both robustness and avoid peaking phenomenon at the initial time, a composite observer was designed, consisting of both a momentum observer and an extended state observer. The first observer provides high-precision tracking, while the second one reduces the peak value at the start. Through their complementary roles, the composite observer achieves improved performance in terms of sensitivity and reducing the peaking value. Simulation results, conducted using a 2-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) robot manipulator, attest to the efficacy of the proposed approach.

Keywords:

Citation: Benaoumeur Ibari, Mourad Hebali, Baghdadi Rezali, Menaouer Bennaoum. Collision detection and external force estimation for robot manipulators using a composite momentum observer[J]. AIMS Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 2024, 8(2): 247-264. doi: 10.3934/electreng.2024011

Related Papers:

[1]	Aziz Belmiloudi . Time-varying delays in electrophysiological wave propagation along cardiac tissue and minimax control problems associated with uncertain bidomain type models. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 928-983. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.928
[2]	Zuliang Lu, Xiankui Wu, Fei Huang, Fei Cai, Chunjuan Hou, Yin Yang . Convergence and quasi-optimality based on an adaptive finite element method for the bilinear optimal control problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9510-9535. doi: 10.3934/math.2021553
[3]	Zahra Pirouzeh, Mohammad Hadi Noori Skandari, Kamele Nassiri Pirbazari, Stanford Shateyi . A pseudo-spectral approach for optimal control problems of variable-order fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23692-23710. doi: 10.3934/math.20241151
[4]	Xin Yi, Rong Liu . An age-dependent hybrid system for optimal contraception control of vermin. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2619-2633. doi: 10.3934/math.2025122
[5]	Yuanyuan Cheng, Yuan Li . A novel event-triggered constrained control for nonlinear discrete-time systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20530-20545. doi: 10.3934/math.20231046
[6]	Xiang Wu, Yuzhou Hou, Kanjian Zhang . Optimal feedback control for a class of fed-batch fermentation processes using switched dynamical system approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9206-9231. doi: 10.3934/math.2022510
[7]	Woocheol Choi, Young-Pil Choi . A sharp error analysis for the DG method of optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9117-9155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022506
[8]	Qian Li, Zhenghong Jin, Linyan Qiao, Aichun Du, Gang Liu . Distributed optimization of nonlinear singularly perturbed multi-agent systems via a small-gain approach and sliding mode control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20865-20886. doi: 10.3934/math.20241015
[9]	Tainian Zhang, Zhixue Luo . Optimal harvesting for a periodic competing system with size structure in a polluted environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14696-14717. doi: 10.3934/math.2022808
[10]	Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Roman Ullah, Nawazish Naveed . Optimal control strategies for a heroin epidemic model with age-dependent susceptibility and recovery-age. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1377-1394. doi: 10.3934/math.2021086

Abstract

1. Introduction

In structural mechanics, particularly in the field of elasticity, there are equations that describe the behavior of thin plates under loads. These equations are often partial differential equations that govern the displacement of a thin plate. The plate equation depends on factors like material properties, geometry, and boundary conditions. In the context of geophysics, "plate equation" could refer to the equations that describe the movement and interaction of tectonic plates on the Earth's surface. Plate tectonics is a theory that explains the movement of the Earth's lithosphere (the rigid outer layer of the Earth) on the more fluid asthenosphere beneath it. In mathematics, specifically in the field of differential equations, the term "plate equation" might be used to refer to certain types of equations. For instance, in polar coordinates, Laplace's equation takes a specific form that is sometimes informally referred to as the "plate equation". Plate equation models are hyperbolic systems that arise in several areas in real-life problems, (see, for instance, Kizilova et al.^[1], Lasiecka et al. ^[2] and Huang et al.^[3]). The theory of plates is the mathematical formulation of the mechanics of flat plates. It is defined as flat structural components with a low thickness compared to plane dimensions. The advantage of the theory of plates comes from the disparity of the length scale to reduce the problem of the mechanics of three-dimensional solids to a two-dimensional problem. The purpose of this theory is to compute the stresses and deformation in a loaded plate. The equation of plates results from the composition of different subsets of plates: The equilibrium equations, constitutive, kinematic, and force resultant, ^[4,5,6].

Following this, there are a wide number of works devoted to the analysis and control of the academic model of hyperbolic systems, the so-called plate equations, For example, the exact and the approximate controllability of thermoelastic plates given by Eller et al. ^[7] and Lagnese and Lions in ^[8] treated the control of thin plates and Lasiecka in ^[9] considered the controllability of the Kirchoff plate. Zuazua ^[10] treated the exact controllability for semi-linear wave equations. Recently many problems involving a plate equations were considered by researchers. Let us cite as examples the stabilization of the damped plate equation under general boundary conditions by Rousseau an Zongo ^[11]; the null controllability for a structurally damped stochastic plate equation studied by Zhao ^[12], Huang et al. ^[13] considerrd a thermal equation of state for zoisite: Implications for the transportation of water into the upper mantle and the high-velocity anomaly in the Farallon plate. Kaplunov et al. ^[14] discussed the asymptotic derivation of 2D dynamic equations of motion for transversely inhomogeneous elastic plates. Hyperbolic systems have recently continued to be of interest to researchers and many results have been obtained. We mention here the work of Fu et al. ^[15] which discusses a class of mixed hyperbolic systems using iterative learning control. Otherwise, for a class of one-dimension linear wave equations, Hamidaoui et al. stated in ^[16] an iterative learning control. Without forgetting that for a class of second-order nonlinear systems Tao et al. proposed an adaptive control based on an disturbance observer in ^[17] to improve the tracking performance and compensation. In addition to these works, the optimal control of the Kirchoff plate using bilinear control was considered by Bradly and Lenhart in ^[18], and Bradly et al. in ^[19]. In fact, in this work we will talk about a bilinear plate equation and we must cite the paper of Zine ^[20] which considers a bilinear hyperbolic system using the Riccati equation. Zine and Ould Sidi ^[19,22] that introduced the notion of partial optimal control of bilinear hyperbolic systems. Li et al. ^[23] give an iterative method for a class of bilinear systems. Liu, et al. ^[24] extended a gradient-based iterative algorithm for bilinear state-space systems with moving average noises by using the filtering technique. Furthermore, flow analysis of hyperbolic systems refers to the problems dealing with the analysis of the flow state on the system domain. We can refer to the work of Benhadid et al. on the flow observability of linear and semilinear systems ^[25], Bourray et al. on treating the controllability flow of linear hyperbolic systems ^[26] and the flow optimal control of bilinear parabolic systems are considered by Ould Sidi and Ould Beinane on ^[27,28].

For the motivation the results proposed in this paper open a wide range of applications. We cite the problem of iterative identification methods for plate bilinear systems ^[23], as well as the problem of the extended flow-based iterative algorithm for a plate systems ^[24].

This paper studies the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective is to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. We show how one can transfer the flow of a plate equation close to the desired profile using optimization techniques and adjoint problems. As an application, we solve the partial flow control problem governed by a plate equation. The results open a wide way of applications in fractional systems. We began in section two by the well-posedness of our problem. In section three, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3). In section four, we state the characterization of the optimal control. In section five we debate the case of time bilinear optimal control. Section six, proposes a method for solving the flow partial optimal control problem governed by a plate equation.

2. Well-posedness of the problem

Consider $\Theta$ an open bounded domain of $I\!\!R^2$ with $C^2$ boundary, for a time $m$ , and $\Gamma = \partial\Theta \times (0, m)$ . The control space time set is such that

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m];L^{\infty}(\Theta)){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p\}, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant. Let the plate bilinear equation be described by the following system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial }^2 {u} }{{\partial t}^2} } + \Delta^{2} u = Q(t)u_{t}, & & (0,m) \times \Theta, \\ u(x,0) = u_0(x) ,\; {\frac{{\partial } u }{{\partial t}} } (x,0) = u_1(x), & & \Theta,\\ u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $u_{t} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$ is the velocity. The state space is $H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ , (see Lions and Magenes ^[29] and Brezis ^[30]). We deduce the existence and uniqueness of the solution for (2.2) using the classical results of Pazy ^[31]. For $\lambda > 0$ , we define $\nabla u$ as the flow control problem governed by the bilinear plate equation (2.2) as the following:

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(2.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ , is the flow penalizing cost defined by

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt, \end{align}$

(2.4)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow target in $L^2(0, m;L^2(\Theta))$ . One of the important motivations when considering the problem (2.3) is the isolation problems, where the control is maintained to reduce the flow temperature on the surface of a thin plate (see El Jai et al. ^[32]).

3. Existence of solution

Lemma 3.1. If $(u_{0}, u_{1}) \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ and $Q \in U_{p}$ , then the solution $(u, u_{t})$ of (2.2) satisfies the following estimate:

$\Big\| (u, u_{t}) \Big\|_{{\cal C}(0,m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))} \leq T (1+ \eta m)e^{\eta K m},$

where $T = \Big\| (u_{0}, u_{1}) \Big\|_{ H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)}$ and $K$ is a positive constant ^[18,19].

Using the above Lemma 3.1, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 3.1. $(u^{*}, Q^*)\in {\cal C}([0, m];\; \; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times U_{p})$ , is the solution of (2.3), where $u^{*}$ is the output of (2.2) and $Q^*$ is the optimal control function.

Proof. Consider the minimizing sequence $(Q_{n})_{n}$ in $U_{p}$ verifying

$C^{*} = \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow +\infty}C_{\lambda}(Q_n) = \inf\limits_{Q\in L^{\infty}(0,m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))} C_{\lambda}(Q).$

We choose $\bar{u}^{n} = (u^{n}, \frac{\partial u^{n}}{\partial t})$ to be the corresponding state of Eq (2.2). Using Lemma 3.1, we deduce

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}(x,t) \Big\|_{H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} + \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{1} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{1}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Furthermore, system (2.2) gives

$\Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{2} \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} {\mbox{ with }} T_{2}\in I\!\!R^{+}.$

Then easily from (3.1), we have

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{3} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{3}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Using (3.1) and (3.2), we have the following weak convergence:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} Q_{n} \rightharpoonup Q^{*}, & & L^{2}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{t}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{t}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{tt}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{tt}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H^{-2}(\Theta)),\\ \end{array} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

From the first convergence property of (3.3) with a control sequence $Q_{n} \in U_{p}$ , easily one can deduce that $Q^{*} \in U_{p}$ ^[20].

In addition, the mild solution of (2.2) verifies

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{n}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{n} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{n} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta). \end{align}$

(3.4)

Using (3.3) and (3.4), we deduce that

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{*}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{*} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{*} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta), \end{align}$

(3.5)

which implies that $u^{*} = u(Q_{*})$ is the output of (2.2) with command function $Q^{*}$ .

Fatou's lemma and the lower semi-continuous property of the cost $C_{\lambda}$ show that

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q^{*}) \leq \frac{1}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\Big\|\nabla u^{k}-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q_{k}^2(x,t)dxdt\\ \leq \liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} C_{\lambda}(Q_{n})\\ = \inf\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{align}$

(3.6)

which allows us to conclude that $Q^{*}$ is the solution of problem (2.3). □

4. Characterization of solution

We devote this section to establish a characterization of solutions to the flow optimal control problem (2.3).

Let the system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = -\Delta^{2}v(x,t)+Q(x,t) v_{t} + d(x,t) v_{t}, & & (0, m)\times \Theta,\\ v(x,0) = v_{t}(x,0) = v_0(x) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ v = \frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

with $d \in L^{\infty}(0, m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))$ verify $Q+\delta d \in U_{p}, \quad \forall \delta > 0$ is a small constant. The functional defined by $Q \in U_{p}\mapsto \bar{u}(Q) = (u, u_{t}) \in {\cal C}(0, m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))$ is differentiable and its differential $\overline{v} = (v, v_{t})$ is the solution of (4.1) ^[21].

The next lemma characterizes the differential of our flow cost functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ with respect to the control function $Q$ .

Lemma 4.1. Let $Q \in U_{p}$ and the differential of $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ can be written as the following:

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int _{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )dtdx+ \varepsilon\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} d Q dt dx.\\ \end{align}$

(4.2)

Proof. Consider the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (2.4), which is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dt dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.3)

Put $u_{k} = z(Q+k d)$ , $u = u(Q)$ , and using (4.3), we have

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{\beta\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}} - u_i^d)^{2}-( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dt dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{\Theta} \int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}(t)dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.4)

Consequently

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q +kd)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}( \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d) dt dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\lambda d Q+ k \lambda d^2)dt dx\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.5)

□ We define the following family of adjoint equations for system (4.1)

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q^*(x,t) (w_{i})_{t}+( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}), & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.6)

Such systems allow us to characterize the optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 4.1. Consider $Q \in U_{p}$ , and $u = u (Q)$ its corresponding state space solution of (2.2), then the control solution of (2.3) is

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-1}{\lambda}(u_{t})(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)), \end{equation}$

(4.7)

where $w = (w_{1}....w_{n})$ with $w_{i} \in C ([ 0, T ]; H^{2}_{0}(\Theta))$ is the unique solution of (4.6).

Proof. Choose $d\in U_{p}$ such that $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ with $k > 0$ . The minimum of $C_{\lambda}$ is realized when the control $Q$ , verifies the following condition:

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k}. \end{equation}$

(4.8)

Consequently, Lemma 4.1 gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx.\\\\ \end{align}$

(4.9)

Substitute by equation (4.6) and we find

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}(x,t) }{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i}(x,t)-Q(x,t)( w_{i})_{t}(x,t))dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} v-Q(x,t) v_{t})w_{i}(x,t)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(d(x,t) u_{t})w_{i}dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt dx\\ \\ = \int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}d(x,t)[u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})+\lambda Q dt dx].\\ \\ \end{align}$

(4.10)

It is known that if $d = d(t)$ in a chosen function with $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ , using Bang-Bang control properties, one can conclude that

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)) = max(-p, min( \frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}Div(w), p)), \end{equation}$

(4.11)

with $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ . □

5. Flow time bilinear control problem

Now, we are able to discuss the case of bilinear time control of the type $Q = Q(t)$ . We want to reach a flow spatial state target prescribed on the whole domain $\Theta$ at a fixed time $m$ .

In such case, the set of controls (2.1) becomes

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m]){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p {\mbox{ for }} t \in (0, m)\}, \end{equation}$

(5.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant.

The cost to minimize is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u(x,m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\Theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(\Theta)} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t)dt, \end{align}$

(5.2)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow spatial target in $L^2(\Theta)$ . The flow control problem is

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ is the flow penalizing cost defined by (5.2), and $U_{p}$ is defined by (5.1).

Corollary 5.1. The solution of the flow time control problem (5.3) is

$\begin{align} Q(t) = max(-p, min(\int_{\Theta}\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda} (\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}})dx,p)) \end{align}$

(5.4)

with $u$ as the solution of (2.2) perturbed by $Q(t)$ and $w_{i}$ as the solution of

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q(t) (w_{i})_{t}, & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(5.5)

Proof. Similar to the approach used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0\leq \int_{0}^{m}d(t)[\int_\Theta u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})dx+\lambda Q ]dt, \end{align}$

(5.6)

where $d(t)\in L^{\infty}(0, m)$ , a control function such that $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ with a small positive constant $k$ . □

Remark 5.1. (1) In the case of spatiotemporal target, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, t) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a the change of velocity induced by the known forces acting on system (4.6).

(2) In the case of a prescribed time $m$ targets, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, m) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a Dirichlet boundary condition in the adjoint equation (5.5).

6. Partial flow optimal control problem

This section establishes the flow partial optimal control problem governed by the plate equation (2.2). Afterward we characterize the solution. Let $\theta\subset \Theta$ be an open subregion of $\Theta$ and we define

$\begin{array}{lll} \widetilde{P_{\theta}}: (L^2(\Theta)) & \longrightarrow & (L^2(\theta)) \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & \widetilde{P}_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}, \end{array}$

and

$\begin{array}{lll} P_{\theta}: (L^2(\Theta))^{n} & \longrightarrow &(L^2(\theta))^{n} \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & P_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}. \end{array}$

We define the adjoint of $P_{\theta}$ by

$P_{\theta}^{*}u = \left\{\begin{array}{lll} u \, \, in \, \, \Theta, \\ 0 \in \Theta \setminus \theta. \end{array} \right.$

Definition 6.1. The plate equation (2.2) is said to flow weakly partially controllable on $\theta \subset \Theta$ , if for $\forall \, \, \beta > 0$ , one can find an optimal control $Q\in L^{2}(0, m)$ such that

$|P_\theta \nabla u_Q(m)-u^d||_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}}\leq \beta,$

where $u^d = (z_{1}^{d}, ...., u_{n}^{d})$ is the desired flow in $(L^2(\theta))^{n}$ .

For $U_{p}$ defined by (5.1), we take the partial flow optimal control problem

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(6.1)

and the partial flow cost $C_{\lambda}$ is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|P_\theta\nabla u(m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u(T)}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.2)

Next, we consider the family of optimality systems

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}} }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = \Delta^{2} w_{i}+Q(t) (w_{i})_{t},& & (0, m)\times\Theta,\\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u(m)}{\partial x_{i}} - \widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,t) = \frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(6.3)

Lemma 6.1. Let the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (6.2) and the control $Q(t) \in U_{p}$ be the solution of (6.1). We can write

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.4)

where the solution of (4.1) is $v$ , and the solution of (6.3) is $w_{i}$ .

Proof. The functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ given by (6.2), is of the form:

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\theta}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.5)

Choose $u_{k} = u(Q+k d)$ and $u = u(Q)$ . By (6.5), we deduce

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\frac{(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}-(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}dt. \end{align}$

(6.6)

Furthermore,

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d)dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{m}(2\lambda d Q+k \lambda d^2)dt\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}( \frac{\partial u(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}}-\widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_i^d)dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}w_{i}(x,m)dx+\lambda \int_{0}^{m}dQ dt. \end{align}$

(6.7)

Using (6.3) to (6.7), we conclude

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt.\\ \end{align}$

(6.8)

□

Theorem 6.1. Consider the set $U_{p}$ , of partial admissible control defined as (5.1) and $u = u (Q)$ is its associate solution of (2.2), then the solution of (6.1) is

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)), \end{equation}$

(6.9)

where $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ .

Proof. Let $d \in U_{p}$ and $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ for $k > 0$ . The cost $C_{\lambda}$ at its minimum $Q$ , verifies

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}. \end{equation}$

(6.10)

From Lemma 6.1, substituting $\frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}$ , by its value in system (4.1), we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}dt+ \int_{0}^{m}(-\Delta^{2} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}+Q(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(v_{t}) + d(t)\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_{i}}(u_{t}))w_{i} dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.11)

and system (6.3) gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}-\Delta^{2} w_{i}-Q(t) (w_{i})_{t})dt+d(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(u_{t})w_{i} dt\right]dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \int_{0}^{m} (h(t)u_{t})\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \int_{0}^{m} h(t)\int_\theta\left[ u_{t}\widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} + \lambda Q\right] dx dt, \end{align}$

(6.12)

which gives the optimal control

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)). \end{equation}$

(6.13)

□

7. Conclusions

This paper studied the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective was to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. The problem flow optimal control governed by a bilinear plate equation was considered and solved in two cases using the adjoint method. The first case considered a spatiotemporal control function and looked to reach a flow target on the whole domain. The second case considered a time control function and looks to reach a prescribed target at a fixed final time. As an application, the partial flow control problem was established and solved using the proposed method. More applications can be examined, for example. the case of fractional hyperbolic systems.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Jouf University under Grant Number (DSR2022-RG-0119).

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

[1]	Haninger K, Radke M, Vick A, Krüger J (2022) Towards high-payload admittance control for manual guidance with environmental contact. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 7: 4275–4282. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2022.3150051 doi: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3150051
[2]	Villani V, Pini F, Leali F, Secchi C (2018) Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics 55: 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009
[3]	Vicentini F (2021) Collaborative robotics: a survey. J Mech Design 143: 040802. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046238 doi: 10.1115/1.4046238
[4]	Ferraguti F, Landi CT, Singletary A, Lin HC, Ames A, Secchi C, et al. (2022) Safety and efficiency in robotics: The control barrier functions approach. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 29: 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2022.3174699 doi: 10.1109/mra.2022.3174699
[5]	Cirillo A, Ficuciello F, Natale C, Pirozzi S, Villani L (2015) A conformable force/tactile skin for physical human–robot interaction. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 1: 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2015.2505061 doi: 10.1109/LRA.2015.2505061
[6]	Pang G, Yang G, Heng W, Ye Z, Huang X, Yang H, et al. (2020) CoboSkin: Soft robot skin with variable stiffness for safer human–robot collaboration. IEEE T Ind Electron 68: 3303–3314. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2020.2978728 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2020.2978728
[7]	Hughes D, Lammie J, Correll N (2018) A robotic skin for collision avoidance and affective touch recognition. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3: 1386–1393. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2799743 doi: 10.1109/LRA.2018.2799743
[8]	Ye Z, Pang G, Xu K, Hou Z, Lv H, Shen Y, et al. (2022) Soft robot skin with conformal adaptability for on-body tactile perception of collaborative robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 7: 5127–5134. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2022.3155225 doi: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3155225
[9]	Flacco F, Kröger T, De Luca A, Khatib O (2012) A depth space approach to human-robot collision avoidance. 2012 IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2012.6225245 doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2012.6225245
[10]	Wisanuvej P, Liu J, Chen C, Yang G (2014) Blind collision detection and obstacle characterisation using a compliant robotic arm. 2014 IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation (ICRA) 2249–2254. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2014.6907170 doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2014.6907170
[11]	Sandykbayeva D, Kappassov Z, Orazbayev B (2022) Vibrotouch: Active tactile sensor for contact detection and force sensing via vibrations. Sensors 22: 6456. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176456 doi: 10.3390/s22176456
[12]	Katsampiris-Salgado K, Haninger K, Gkrizis C, Dimitropoulos N, Krüger J, Michalos G, et al. (2024) Collision detection for collaborative assembly operations on high-payload robots. Robot Com-Int Manuf 87: 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102708 doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102708
[13]	Sharkawy A, Koustoumpardis P, Aspragathos N (2019) Manipulator collision detection and collided link identification based on neural networks. Advances In Service And Industrial Robotics: Proceedings Of The 27th International Conference On Robotics In Alpe-Adria Danube Region (RAAD 2018) 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00232-9_1 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00232-9_1
[14]	Min F, Wang G, Liu N (2019) Collision detection and identification on robot manipulators based on vibration analysis. Sensors 19: 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19051080 doi: 10.3390/s19051080
[15]	Heo Y, Kim D, Lee W, Kim H, Park J, Chung W (2019) Collision detection for industrial collaborative robots: A deep learning approach. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 4: 740–746. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2019.2893400 doi: 10.1109/LRA.2019.2893400
[16]	Narukawa K, Yoshiike T, Tanaka K, Kuroda M (2017) Real-time collision detection based on one class SVM for safe movement of humanoid robot. 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference On Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids) 791–796. https://doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2017.8246962 doi: 10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2017.8246962
[17]	Dimeas F, Avendaño-Valencia L, Aspragathos N (2015) Human-robot collision detection and identification based on fuzzy and time series modelling. Robotica 33: 1886–1898. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574714001143 doi: 10.1017/S0263574714001143
[18]	Jing X, Guangxin W, Chongyang L, Hong L (2016) Real-time collision detection for manipulators based on fuzzy synthetic evaluation. 2016 IEEE International Conference On Mechatronics And Automation 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA.2016.7558661 doi: 10.1109/ICMA.2016.7558661
[19]	Sedigh Ziyabari H, Aliyari Shoorehdeli M (2018) Fuzzy robust fault estimation scheme for a class of nonlinear systems based on an unknown input sliding mode observer. J Vib Control 24: 1861–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546316669 doi: 10.1177/1077546316669
[20]	Caccavale F, Walker I (1997) Observer-based fault detection for robot manipulators. Proceedings Of International Conference On Robotics And Automation 4: 2881–2887. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1997.606724 doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1997.606724
[21]	Morinaga S, Kosuge K (2003) Collision detection system for manipulator based on adaptive impedance control law. 2003 IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation (Cat. No. 03CH37422) 1: 1080–1085. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1241736 doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1241736
[22]	Haddadin S (2013) Towards safe robots: Approaching Asimov's 1st law., Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol. 90, Berlin, Heidelberg Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40308-8
[23]	Hu J, Xiong R (2017) Contact force estimation for robot manipulator using semiparametric model and disturbance Kalman filter. IEEE T Ind Electron 65: 3365–3375. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2748056 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2017.2748056
[24]	De Luca A, Mattone R (2003) Actuator failure detection and isolation using generalized momenta. 2003 IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation (cat. No. 03CH37422) 1: 634–639. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1241665 doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1241665
[25]	Haddadin S, De Luca A, Albu-Schäffer A (2017) Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification. IEEE T Robot 33: 1292–1312. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2017.2723903 doi: 10.1109/TRO.2017.2723903
[26]	Garofalo G, Mansfeld N, Jankowski J, Ott C (2019) Sliding mode momentum observers for estimation of external torques and joint acceleration. 2019 International Conference On Robotics And Automation (ICRA) 6117–6123. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793529 doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793529
[27]	Long S, Dang X, Sun S, Wang Y, Gui M (2022) A Novel Sliding Mode Momentum Observer for Collaborative Robot Collision Detection. Machines 10: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10090818 doi: 10.3390/machines10090818
[28]	Zhang C, Mu C, Wang Y, Li J, Liu Z (2023) Collision detection for six-DOF serial robots force/position hybrid control based on continuous friction model. Measurement and Control 56: 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/00202940221091575 doi: 10.1177/00202940221091575
[29]	Abdelaziz O, Luo M, Jiang G, Chen S (2020) Adaptive threshold for robot manipulator collision detection using fuzzy system. SN Appl Sci 2: 319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2110-z doi: 10.1007/s42452-020-2110-z
[30]	Birjandi S, Kühn J, Haddadin S (2020) Observer-extended direct method for collision monitoring in robot manipulators using proprioception and IMU sensing. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 5: 954–961. 10.1109/LRA.2020.2967287
[31]	Ren T, Dong Y, Wu D, Chen K (2018) Collision detection and identification for robot manipulators based on extended state observer. Control Eng Pract 79: 44–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2018.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.conengprac.2018.07.004
[32]	Li Y, Li Y, Zhu M, Xu Z, Mu D (2021) A nonlinear momentum observer for sensorless robot collision detection under model uncertainties. Mechatronics 78: 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2021.102603 doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2021.102603
[33]	Murray R, Li Z, Sastry S, Sastry S (1994) A mathematical introduction to robotic manipulation, 1st Eds., California, Boca Raton: CRC press, 519. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315136370
[34]	De Luca A, Mattone R (2005) Sensorless robot collision detection and hybrid force/motion control. Proceedings Of The 2005 IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation 999–1004. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570247 doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570247
[35]	De Luca A, Albu-Schaffer A, Haddadin S, Hirzinger G (2006) Collision detection and safe reaction with the DLR-Ⅲ lightweight manipulator arm. 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference On Intelligent Robots And Systems 1623–1630. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.282053 doi: 10.1109/IROS.2006.282053
[36]	Han J (2009) From PID to active disturbance rejection control. IEEE T Ind Electron 56: 900–906. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2008.2011621 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2008.2011621

This article has been cited by:

Fatima Hussain, Suha Shihab, Transforming Controlled Duffing Oscillator to Optimization Schemes Using New Symmetry-Shifted G(t)-Polynomials, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 915, 10.3390/sym16070915

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)