Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Compliance while resisting: a shear-thickening fluid controller for physical human-robot interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A power-law damping law lets one fixed admittance controller comply with gentle pulls near 5 N while cutting velocity jumps from 40--70 N impacts to a third or half of linear alternatives.

desk verdict A practical power-law admittance law for pHRI with promising impact resistance, but the mobile-manipulator stability bound is miscomputed and the Appendix C proof is wrong as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01376 v1 pith:CINULKUO submitted 2025-02-03 cs.RO

Lu Chen , Lipeng Chen , Xiangchi Chen , Haojian Lu , Yu Zheng , Jun Wu , Yue Wang , Zhengyou Zhang
show 1 more author
Rong Xiong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO MSC 93C8593C1093D05
keywords physicalhuman-robotinteractionshear-thickeningfluidnonlinearadmittancecontrolimpactresistancetractioncompliancedescribingfunctionpassivitydiscrete-timestability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a single fixed nonlinear admittance law can make a collaborative robot comply with gentle human pulling while resisting hard impact blows, with no mode switching and no classification of the incoming force. The law, borrowed from the constitutive equation of shear-thickening fluids, is $m\ddot{x} + \mu|\dot{x}|^{n-1}\dot{x} = f_{\mathrm{ext}}$ with $n > 1$: because damping grows faster than velocity, a small traction force moves the robot about as easily as a linear admittance controller does, while a 40--70 N impact produces only a fraction of the velocity jump. If true, this resolves a central safety-versus-transparency trade-off in physical human-robot interaction, letting one fixed parameter set serve both collaborative guidance and unexpected collisions. The authors support the claim with stability, passivity, and describing-function analysis, a discrete-time stability constraint, a parameter auto-tuning procedure, and real-world experiments on fixed and mobile manipulators, including a water-carrying task that survives impacts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shear-thickening admittance law of Eq. (11), $m\ddot{x} + \mu|\dot{x}|^{n-1}\dot{x} = f_{\mathrm{ext}}$, whose damping term is copied from the power-law constitutive equation of shear-thickening fluids. Its defining property is that the damping-to-velocity ratio $\mu|\dot{x}|^{n-1}$ grows without bound as speed rises: at crawling speeds the robot feels nearly undamped and follows the human's pull, while at impact-driven speeds the damping overwhelms the force and caps the velocity jump. The argument is carried by three supporting constructions: the nonlinear spatial velocity ratio $R_{\mathrm{sv}} = -(\mu/m)|x_2|^{n-1}$ describing phase-plane convergence in free motion; the inverse describing function $N(B,\omega)$ that converts an assumed sinusoidal output velocity into the required input amplitude and yields closed-form bandwidth, time-constant, and gain-variation formulas; and the discrete recursion constraint on $\Delta T$ that bounds the Euler-integration step against acceleration oscillation.

What would settle it

Re-run the arithmetic and the experiment: substituting $m=1$, $\mu=20$, $n=3$, and $|f_{\mathrm{ext,max}}|=70$ N into Eq. (21) gives $\Delta T \approx 0.014$ s, not the 0.023 s the text reports, so driving the Euler-discretized SFC with the mobile manipulator's $\Delta T = 0.02$ s under repeated 70 N impulses and watching whether acceleration diverges would settle whether the claimed stability region holds; a comparison run at $\Delta T = 0.014$ s would show the predicted boundary. A second check: because Theorem 3 assumes constant external force, feeding a 70 N half-sine pulse rather than a step and recording whether the oscillation boundary in Fig. 12 shifts would test the assumption where it is weakest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that shear-thickening rheology, abstracted as power-law damping $D(\dot{x}) = \mu|\dot{x}|^{n-1}\dot{x}$ with $n > 1$, is a viable virtual dynamics for admittance-controlled robots: globally asymptotically stable under constant loads, passive under arbitrary external forces, and provably convergent in free motion, so it qualifies as a safe interaction law. The frequency-domain analysis via an inverse describing function yields three design handles---bandwidth that narrows as input amplitude falls, a time constant that shrinks as force grows, and a gain attenuation of $20w(1-n)/n$ dB per $10^w$-fold amplitude increase---which together explain and tune the traction/impact dichotomy. The paper further claims that the Euler-discretized controller remains stable when the sample time obeys $\Delta T < 2m\mu^{-1/n} n^{-1} |f_{\mathrm{ext,max}}|^{(1-n)/n}$, and that with parameters set by its auto-tuning algorithm, SFC reproduces linear admittance control's responsiveness at traction levels near 5 N while holding end-effector velocity jumps during 40--70 N impacts to roughly one-third to one-half of those of linear or saturating-nonlinear alternatives.

Load-bearing premise

The discrete-time stability guarantee is derived under a zero-or-constant external force assumption, even though the controller is meant to handle impulsive impacts, and the paper's stated 0.023 s bound for the mobile manipulator appears to be a miscalculation of its own Eq. (21), which at the stated parameters ($m=1$, $\mu=20$, $n=3$, $|f_{\mathrm{ext,max}}|=70$ N) gives roughly 0.014 s rather than 0.023 s.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single fixed SFC parameter set replaces any impact-detection, thresholding, or mode-switching layer: the controller separates traction from impact purely through its amplitude-dependent gain.
  • On robots with low control rates, such as the 50 Hz mobile manipulator, SFC with parameters chosen under the discrete bound still suppresses impact energy above about 1 Hz, where linear and saturating-nonlinear admittance controllers let it through.
  • Because SFC's damping depends only on the velocity state, the controller retains high damping after an impact ends and returns to steady state faster than force-dependent nonlinear admittance controllers, which lose damping the moment the force drops.
  • The auto-tuning algorithm converts task-level requirements (traction force, impact force, desired traction speed, bandwidth, sample time) directly into the controller parameters $\mu$, $n$, $g$, with an explicit condition for when the feasible bandwidth must be reduced.
  • The paper expects the same law to carry over to exoskeletons, teleoperated robots, and other non-Newtonian rheologies, where traction-compliant yet impact-resistant behavior would protect wearers and operators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the describing-function analysis treats the controller as a bijection between output velocity and input force, the amplitude-stratification argument should extend to multi-axis motion; a strong impact along one axis would raise the effective damping seen by the other axes, an effect the current experiments only glimpse in the orthogonal-direction test.
  • A direct substitution suggests the mobile-manipulator sample time may lie outside the stated stability region, which would mean the 50 Hz viability claim currently rests on the experiments rather than on Theorem 3.
  • A testable corollary of state-dependent damping is that SFC's post-impact settling time stays short even when the impact force vanishes abruptly, whereas a force-dependent N-AC lags; this could be measured as a settling-time metric in a repeat-impulse protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a shear-thickening-fluid-inspired nonlinear admittance controller, SFC (Eq. 11): m x_ddot + mu |x_dot|^{n-1} x_dot = f_ext with n > 1, intended to make a robot simultaneously compliant to low-amplitude human traction (near 5 N) and resistive to high-amplitude impulsive impacts (40-70 N) using a single fixed nonlinear law. The authors provide a stability/passivity/phase-trajectory analysis (Appendix C), an inverse describing-function frequency-domain analysis (Theorem 2), bandwidth/time-constant/gain-variation corollaries, a discrete-time sample-time constraint (Theorem 3), a coupled-stability condition (Theorem 4), and an auto-tuning algorithm (Algorithm 1). The results are supported by Simulink verification (Tables 3-5) and by real-world experiments on a fixed manipulator (UR16e, 500 Hz) and a mobile manipulator (50 Hz), plus a qualitative factory case study. The central empirical claim, that SFC limits velocity jumps under 40-70 N impacts to about one-third to one-half the jumps of L-AC and N-AC while preserving a similar traction response near 5 N, is plausible and, for the fixed manipulator, well illustrated.

Significance. The central idea is simple and appealing: a single, fixed nonlinear admittance law that behaves softly for small forces and stiffly for large forces, without mode switching or explicit force classification. If the results hold, the contribution is practically relevant for walk-through programming and collaborative handling, and the analytical package - the inverse describing function, the bandwidth and time-constant scaling rules, and an auto-tuning procedure with explicit design inputs - is a genuine step beyond ad hoc nonlinear admittance tuning. The paper deserves credit for checking analytical predictions against simulation rather than fitting them post hoc, for testing the fixed manipulator across traction-only, impact-only, and simultaneous traction/impact conditions, and for demonstrating operation on a low-bandwidth 50 Hz mobile platform. The auto-tuning algorithm gives falsifiable parameter recipes from user requirements. However, the theoretical load-bearing claims currently contain three specific errors (Appendices C, D, and E), and the paper's own stability computation does not support the mobile-manipulator sample-time choice.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (34)] The equilibrium shift is incorrect. With s = x_dot - x_dot*, where x_dot* = |f_ext/mu|^{1/n} sign(f_ext), substitution into Eq. (11) gives m s_dot + mu(|x_dot* + s|^{n-1}(x_dot* + s) - |x_dot*|^{n-1} x_dot*) = 0, not m s_dot + mu |s|^{n-1} s = 0. The cross terms in s are omitted, so the Lyapunov argument in Property 2 proves stability only of a different system and, as written, is invalid. The conclusion is salvageable: the damping function eta(s) = mu |x_dot* + s|^{n-1}(x_dot* + s) is strictly increasing in s, so with V = s^2 one obtains V_dot = -2 s (eta(s) - eta(0))/m < 0 for s != 0, giving global asymptotic stability. The corrected proof should be presented, since Property 2 is one of the three safety guarantees claimed in Theorem 1.
  2. [Appendix E, Eq. (74) and Section 7.1.2] Theorem 3's sample-time bound is derived under the explicit assumption, stated immediately before Eq. (74), that the external force is zero or constant (f_ext(t) - f_ext(t+1) = 0). The controller's intended operating regime is impulsive 40-70 N impacts, for which the force difference across one sample is large; precisely there the derivation drops the term m^{-1}(f_ext(t) - f_ext(t+1)) and the bound does not follow. In addition, the application of the bound in Section 7.1.2 is arithmetically wrong: with m = 1, mu = 20, n = 3, and f_ext,max = 70 N, Eq. (21) gives Delta T < 2 * 1 * 20^{-1/3} * 3^{-1} * 70^{-2/3} = 0.0145 s, not 0.023 s. The implemented 0.02 s sample time therefore violates the paper's own stated stability region, contradicting the sentence that the sample time 'met this requirement and assured the stability of the system under discrete control'. The claim that SFC is validated for low control frequencies needs either a re-derivation of the bound for time-varying forces, a re-tuning that satisfies the corrected bound, or an explicit statement that the bound is only sufficient and the 50 Hz results are empirical.
  3. [Appendix D, Eqs. (13)-(17) and Tables 3-4] The describing-function coefficient Psi(n) = 2 sqrt(pi) Gamma(1 + n/2)/Gamma((3 + n)/2) in Eq. (13) is a factor pi too large. Computing the fundamental Fourier coefficient of D(x_dot) = mu |x_dot|^{n-1} x_dot under x_dot = B sin(omega t) gives b_1 = (2/sqrt(pi)) mu B^n Gamma(1 + n/2)/Gamma((3 + n)/2); the paper's Psi differs by exactly pi. A direct consistency check is the linear case: n = 1 must reproduce m x_ddot + mu x_dot = f_ext, whose response amplitude is 1/sqrt((m omega)^2 + mu^2), whereas Eq. (14) with Psi(1) = pi gives 1/sqrt((m omega)^2 + (mu pi)^2). The error propagates into the bandwidth formula (16), the time constant (17), the coupled-stability quantity Q in Theorem 4, and Step 4 of Algorithm 1, where mu is computed pi times too small, so the realized bandwidth is pi^{-1/n} lower than designed (about 32% lower for n = 3). Because Tables 3-4 report 0-10% agreement between the formulas and the 'numerical' simulations, and a direct simulation of Eq. (11) with the corrected coefficient would differ by pi^{1/n} = 1.46 for n = 3, the verification pipeline appears to reproduce the same factor error; the authors should recompute Psi, rerun the verification against Eq. (11), and re-derive the tuning formulas.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3 / Section 6.3.1] The bandwidth values (1.05, 4.90, 22.75) are computed from Eq. (16), which yields rad/s, and Fig. 13 uses rad/s, but Table 3 labels the column 'Hz'; the unit should be corrected.
  2. [Sections 7.2.4 and 7.3] The self-excited oscillations of N-AC are attributed to a possible limit cycle, but no phase portrait, spectrum, or supporting analysis is provided, and the quantitative comparisons in Table 6 and Figs. 17-22 appear to come from single trials without repeated runs or error bars; the claims would be stronger with repeated measurements or with explicit single-trial reporting.
  3. [Theorem 2 and Corollaries 1-3] The theorems and corollaries state n > 0, but the shear-thickening behavior and the claimed traction/impact differentiation depend on n > 1; the domain n > 1 should be used consistently in all statements that feed the design algorithm.
  4. [Appendix F / Algorithm 1] In Step 1, Eq. (84) involves ratios of logarithms of quantities that are both less than 1 for the intended requirements, so the inequality direction and sign handling should be spelled out; line 3 of the algorithm should also state explicitly which form of the bandwidth constraint (including the force-ratio factor of Eq. (22)) is being checked.
  5. [Sections 3-7] The paper alternates between 'sample time', 'sampling time', and 'control frequency' for Delta T; the terminology should be unified, and the role of g (set to 1 in the analysis but non-unit in Table 2) should be clarified in the time-constant and gain-variation simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the impact-resistance and traction-compliance behaviors are by-construction consequences of the n>1 power-law damping term, and the supporting stability, passivity, and frequency-domain analyses are self-contained rather than derived from the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The paper proposes a specific nonlinear admittance law, m x_ddot + mu |x_dot|^(n-1) x_dot = f_ext (Eq. 11), and its central claims about compliance and impact resistance follow directly from the chosen power-law damping rather than from fitting or from assuming the conclusion. The auto-tuning algorithm (Algorithm 1) maps user-specified force and velocity requirements into the parameters n, mu, and g using the controller's own low-frequency gain expression; this is a design or calibration procedure, not a prediction made after fitting to the outcome data. The analytical corollaries on bandwidth, time constant, and gain variation are derived from a describing-function approximation and then checked against independent Simulink integration, with errors under 10% reported; no fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted result. The stability and passivity proofs in Appendix C are self-contained Lyapunov and power-balance arguments, and the coupled-stability condition in Appendix I is derived from the interconnection of passive blocks rather than from an appeal to the authors' prior work. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the paper's theorems are proved in the appendices, and the STF inspiration is presented as an analogy, not as an external uniqueness theorem. The principal weaknesses of the paper are correctness and validity concerns rather than circularity: the discrete-time stability bound in Theorem 3 is derived under an explicit constant-or-zero f_ext assumption (Appendix E), which is violated in the intended impulsive-impact regime; the numerical application of Eq. (21) to the mobile manipulator parameters appears inconsistent (giving about 0.0145 s rather than the stated 0.023 s); and the shifted-damping equation in Appendix C's stability proof is algebraically incorrect as written, although the result is likely salvageable by monotonicity. These are substantive technical issues, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs, and they do not constitute circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the power-law damping parameters (n, mu, m, g) and on several domain assumptions: separable traction/impact force sets, a passive human, ideal inner-loop tracking, the describing-function approximation, and constant force in the discrete analysis. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • n (power-law exponent) = 3 (fixed and mobile experiments)
    Controls the steepness of the nonlinear damping. Chosen via Algorithm 1 from the ratio of impact to traction force and velocity limits.
  • mu (apparent damping coefficient) = 393 N (fixed), 20 N (mobile)
    Sets the overall damping level; computed by the auto-tuning algorithm from desired bandwidth and force requirements.
  • m (virtual inertia) = 1 (normalized)
    Virtual inertia normalized to 1 in all experiments; the paper notes the relative mu/m ratio determines bandwidth.
  • g (output gain) = 0.21 (fixed), 0.04 (mobile)
    Scales the velocity output so the robot moves at the desired speed under the traction force.
  • force classification thresholds (fth, epsilon+, epsilon-) = traction: 10 N / 10 Hz; impact: 60 N / 300 Hz
    Hand-chosen thresholds in Section 2.5 to define the traction and impact force sets; no data or method is given for their selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption External forces can be partitioned into traction and impact sets by amplitude and frequency thresholds (Eqs. 7-10).
    The whole problem statement presumes that impacts are high-amplitude and/or high-frequency; if a dangerous force falls below both thresholds, SFC will treat it as traction.
  • domain assumption Human operator is a passive mass-damper impedance Zh(s)=1/(m_h s + b_h) (Eq. 93).
    Used in the coupled-stability proof (Appendix I). If the human actively injects energy, the phase-based passivity argument does not hold.
  • domain assumption The inner-loop velocity controller tracks the virtual-dynamics velocity command accurately (Section 2.2).
    The realized robot dynamics equal the virtual dynamics only if the low-level velocity loop is ideal; the paper explicitly anticipates this assumption.
  • standard math Describing-function approximation: output x_dot is a single sinusoid and higher harmonics are negligible (Appendix D).
    Standard approximation for nonlinear frequency response; the paper acknowledges up to 10% error in time constant.
  • ad hoc to paper External force is zero or constant during the discrete-time stability derivation (Appendix E, before Eq. 74).
    This assumption contradicts the intended impact scenario, so the derived bound's validity for impulsive forces is unproven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compliance while resisting: a shear-thickening fluid controller for physical human-robot interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CINULKUO

@misc{pith2026250201376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compliance while resisting: a shear-thickening fluid controller for physical human-robot interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CINULKUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01376}
}
read the original abstract

Physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) is widely needed in many fields, such as industrial manipulation, home services, and medical rehabilitation, and puts higher demands on the safety of robots. Due to the uncertainty of the working environment, the pHRI may receive unexpected impact interference, which affects the safety and smoothness of the task execution. The commonly used linear admittance control (L-AC) can cope well with high-frequency small-amplitude noise, but for medium-frequency high-intensity impact, the effect is not as good. Inspired by the solid-liquid phase change nature of shear-thickening fluid, we propose a Shear-thickening Fluid Control (SFC) that can achieve both an easy human-robot collaboration and resistance to impact interference. The SFC's stability, passivity, and phase trajectory are analyzed in detail, the frequency and time domain properties are quantified, and parameter constraints in discrete control and coupled stability conditions are provided. We conducted simulations to compare the frequency and time domain characteristics of L-AC, nonlinear admittance controller (N-AC), and SFC, and validated their dynamic properties. In real-world experiments, we compared the performance of L-AC, N-AC, and SFC in both fixed and mobile manipulators. L-AC exhibits weak resistance to impact. N-AC can resist moderate impacts but not high-intensity ones, and may exhibit self-excited oscillations. In contrast, SFC demonstrated superior impact resistance and maintained stable collaboration, enhancing comfort in cooperative water delivery tasks. Additionally, a case study was conducted in a factory setting, further affirming the SFC's capability in facilitating human-robot collaborative manipulation and underscoring its potential in industrial applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01376 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interactive robot motion modeling and control based on shear-thickening fluid dynamics: the robot can comply with human traction and resist external impact cases where the controlled objects are nonlinear (Morbi et al. (2013); Bascetta and Ferretti (2019); Kim et al. (2019)). It is uncommon for admittance controllers themselves to be nonlinear. The existing research on nonlinear admittance control involve achieving … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Control framework for the pHRI underlying virtual robot dynamics. The interaction model’s solution with input fext yields the value of x¯˙ , which the velocity-controlled robot needs to adhere to. This is achieved by computing the desired joint velocities q˙ d via differential inverse kinematics and regulating the joint torque τ to enable the joint velocities q˙ to track q˙ d . foundation for the subsequent sections… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Schematic view of physical human-robot interaction. (a) An admittance-controlled robot featuring virtual damping (µa) and virtual mass (ma), maintains contact with a human possessing inertia (mh), stiffness (kh), and damping (µh). (b) A robot that is controlled by SFC and equipped with STFs damping (D( ˙x)) and virtual mass (m) is subjected to external environmental forces (fext). constrained to interact with its en… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sets of three kinds of interacting forces Definition 3: (Traction forces) If the external force acting on the robot is below a certain magnitude fth and has a maximum frequency below a threshold value ε − , it is considered as a traction force. Mathematically, this con…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Block diagram of a SFC. A mapping relationship between force and velocity is described, corresponding to the virtual dynamics module shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-linear damping force behavior in relation to velocity. flexibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The phase trajectory comparison of AC and SFC (µ = 1, M = 1). (a) L-AC (n = 1). (b) SFC (n = 3 > 1). Property 1: (Non-linear spatial velocity ratio). The SFC’s phase trajectory is plotted on the phase plane with x1 representing the position state on the horizontal axis…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Amplitude response in frequency domain. (a) L-AC (mA = µA = GA = 1) (b) N-AC(mN = µN = gN = αN = 1, σN = 10). (c) SFC (n = 3 > 1, m = µ = g = 1). The dashed arrow indicates an increase in external force. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Time (s) Output Veloc…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Step response in time domain. The red dashed arrow is the direction of the external force increase. The direction of the grey dashed arrow represents the decrease in the time constant. (a) L-AC (n = 1) (b) N-AC (c) SFC (n = 3 > 1) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impulse response in time domain. 6.2.3 Impulse response analysis To test the controller response under the combined effect of traction and impact force, we applied the following external force input (28). We started by applying a constant traction force of 5 N, and th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: SFC’s step responses at different sample times bode diagrams with different inputs exhibit precise overlap, while its time constants for step response remain identical, amplifying the difficulties of resisting high-intensity impact. 2) Comparing SFC and N-AC, both con…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of Bode diagrams for L-AC, N-AC, and SFC in both fixed and mobile manipulators. The Bode diagram for L-AC is represented by the black dashed line, while the colored curves depict the Bode diagrams for N-AC and SFC. (Subplot a-b) is for the fixed manipulator…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The traction phase - experimental snapshots: initialization by human operator, followed by forward traction (The duration of the sequence is 5s). The numbers in the graph correspond to the numbers on the curve, representing the moment of the snapshot. The red arrow is…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Results of the traction phase on the fixed manipulator column 1: (subplots a-d-g) L-AC - traction column 2: (subplots b-e-h) N-AC - traction column 3: (subplots c-f-i) SFC - traction (snapshot 1), the impact occurs (snapshot 2), resulting in the tray carrying water be…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The impact phase - experimental snapshots: Initialization by a human operator for impact response testing (The duration of the sequence is 0.5s). The impact force occurs at the moment of the snapshot in number 2. The red arrow shows the direction and distance of the e…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Results of the impact phase on the fixed manipulator column 1: (subplots a-f-k) L-AC Moderate impact column 2: (subplots b-g-l) N-AC Moderate impact column 3: (subplots c-h-m) N-AC Intense impact column 4: (subplots d-i-n) SFC Moderate impact column 5: (subplots e-j-o…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The simultaneous impact and traction phase - experimental snapshots: initialization by human operator, followed by forward traction and impact interference simultaneously. (The duration of the sequence is 5s). The impact and the traction occur simultaneously in the sa…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Experimental results of simultaneous impact and traction phase on fixed manipulator column 1 (subplots a-d-g): L-AC - traction and impact column 2 (subplots b-e-h): N-AC - traction and impact column 3 (subplots c-f-i): SFC - traction and impact we conducted a water tr…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Results of simultaneous impact and traction experiments in the orthogonal direction column 1: (subplots a-g-m) N-AC Moderate impact column 2: (subplots b-h-n) N-AC Moderate impact column 3: (subplots c-i-o) N-AC Intense impact column 4: (subplots d-j-p) SFC Moderate i…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Results of the impact phase on the mobile manipulator. The upper half of each subplot illustrates the signals in the temporal domain, while the lower half portrays the associated outcomes of the continuous wavelet transform. row 1: (subplots a-b) L-AC-traction (subplo…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Experimental results of simultaneous impact and traction phase on mobile manipulator row 1: (subplots a-b-c) L-AC-traction and impact row 2: (subplots d-e-f) SFC-traction and impact in the design of SFC, as well as the discrete constraints and stability of human-robot…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Efficient collaboration and impact resistance of mobile manipulator robot with SFC in dynamic factory environment manipulators: An overview. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2018. Albu-Schaffer A and Hirzinger G (2002) Cartesian impedance control techniques for torque…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: , consider a thin layer of flow confined between two wide parallel plates separated by a small distance H. The bottom plate keeps stationary, while the top plate is free to move. Suppose a constant external force FF is applied to the top plate. Under a steady state th…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The interconnection and composition of each component in the human-robot coupled state Force Sensor Robot End-Effector Pre-Sensor Robot Dynamics mps ext f (t) sensor f (t) mr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Schematic diagram of interactive force measurement. the VDC acceleration undergoes a tremendous disturbance. Hence, it can be demonstrated that when the power-law parameter of the controller is too high, it can lead to the system being in an ill-conditioned state. The…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The interconnection between an admittance-controlled robot, characterized by its apparent admittance Ya, and a human with an impedance Zh, results in a closed-loop (coupled) interaction behavior. Due to the presence of the end-effector mass (mps) , the force sensed by…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize ":" * " " *...

  3. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 15(3): 465--474

    Adams RJ and Hannaford B (1999) Stable haptic interaction with virtual environments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 15(3): 465--474

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2018

    Al-Shuka HF, Leonhardt S, Zhu WH, Song R, Ding C and Li Y (2018) Active impedance control of bioinspired motion robotic manipulators: An overview. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Albu-Schaffer A and Hirzinger G (2002) Cartesian impedance control techniques for torque controlled light-weight robots. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE, pp. 657--663

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    In: Proceeding of the 20th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids)

    Arduengo M, Arduengo A, Colom \'e A, Lobo-Prat J and Torras C (2021) Human to robot whole-body motion transfer. In: Proceeding of the 20th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, pp. 299--305

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 43(8): 1760--1773

    Aydin Y, Sirintuna D and Basdogan C (2021) Towards collaborative drilling with a cobot using admittance controller. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 43(8): 1760--1773

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on Haptics 11(3): 464--475

    Aydin Y, Tokatli O, Patoglu V and Basdogan C (2018) Stable physical human-robot interaction using fractional order admittance control. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 11(3): 464--475

    work page 2018

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Applied Sciences 10(11): 3810

    Ayoubi Y, Laribi MA, Arsicault M and Zeghloul S (2020) Safe pHRI via the variable stiffness safety-oriented mechanism (V2SOM) : Simulation and experimental validations. Applied Sciences 10(11): 3810

    2020

  2. [10]

    Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 57: 197--212

    Bascetta L and Ferretti G (2019) Ensuring safety in hands-on control through stability analysis of the human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 57: 197--212

    2019

  3. [11]

    IEEE Access 8: 145661--145671

    Chen G, Guo S, Hou B and Wang J (2020) Compliance control and analysis for equivalent hydraulic legs. IEEE Access 8: 145661--145671

    2020

  4. [12]

    Mechatronics 84: 102802

    Chen J and Ro PI (2022) Human intention-oriented variable admittance control with power envelope regulation in physical human-robot interaction. Mechatronics 84: 102802

    2022

  5. [13]

    In: Rheology of complex fluids

    Chhabra RP (2010) Non-newtonian fluids: an introduction. In: Rheology of complex fluids. Springer, pp. 3--34

    2010

  6. [14]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 17(12): 1302--1309

    Chung JH, Velinsky SA and Hess RA (1998) Interaction control of a redundant mobile manipulator. The International Journal of Robotics Research 17(12): 1302--1309

    1998

  7. [15]

    International Journal of Control 48(1): 65--88

    Colgate JE and Hogan N (1988) Robust control of dynamically interacting systems. International Journal of Control 48(1): 65--88

    1988

  8. [16]

    Journal of Robotic Systems 14(1): 37--47

    Colgate JE and Schenkel GG (1997) Passivity of a class of sampled-data systems: Application to haptic interfaces. Journal of Robotic Systems 14(1): 37--47

    1997

  9. [17]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(9): 1103--1120

    Colonnese N and Okamura A (2016) Stability and quantization-error analysis of haptic rendering of virtual stiffness and damping. The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(9): 1103--1120

    2016

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)

    De Luca A and Flacco F (2012) Integrated control for pHRI : Collision avoidance, detection, reaction and collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob). Rome, Italy: IEEE, pp. 288--295

    2012

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    De Stefano M, Artigas J and Secchi C (2017) A passive integration strategy for rendering rotational rigid-body dynamics on a robotic simulator. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE, pp. 2806--2812

    2017

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Haptics 9(2): 267--278

    Dimeas F and Aspragathos N (2016) Online stability in human-robot cooperation with admittance control. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 9(2): 267--278

    2016

  13. [21]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 373(2051): 20140402

    Elliott S, Tehrani MG and Langley R (2015) Nonlinear damping and quasi-linear modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 373(2051): 20140402

    2015

  14. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 31(5): 1073--1088

    Ferraguti F, Preda N, Manurung A, Bonfe M, Lambercy O, Gassert R, Muradore R, Fiorini P and Secchi C (2015) An energy tank-based interactive control architecture for autonomous and teleoperated robotic surgery. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 31(5): 1073--1088

    2015

  15. [23]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(6): 747--765

    Ferraguti F, Talignani Landi C, Sabattini L, Bonfe M, Fantuzzi C and Secchi C (2019) A variable admittance control strategy for stable physical human--robot interaction. The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(6): 747--765

    2019

  16. [24]

    Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 175: 76--88

    Ferr \'a s L, N \'o brega J and Pinho F (2012) Analytical solutions for newtonian and inelastic non-newtonian flows with wall slip. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 175: 76--88

    2012

  17. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 33(6): 1292--1312

    Haddadin S, De Luca A and Albu-Sch \"a ffer A (2017) Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 33(6): 1292--1312

    2017

  18. [26]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2): 3025--3032

    Hamid E, Herzig N, Abad SA and Nanayakkara T (2021) A state-dependent damping method to reduce collision force and its variability. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2): 3025--3032

    2021

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC)

    Hogan N (1984) Impedance control: An approach to manipulation. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC). San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE, pp. 304--313

    1984

  20. [28]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 22(5): 2141--2152

    Jin M, Kang SH, Chang PH and Lee J (2017) Robust control of robot manipulators using inclusive and enhanced time delay control. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 22(5): 2141--2152

    2017

  21. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 60(8): 3304--3317

    Jin Y, Chang PH, Jin M and Gweon DG (2013) Stability guaranteed time-delay control of manipulators using nonlinear damping and terminal sliding mode. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 60(8): 3304--3317

    2013

  22. [30]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24(3): 1023--1032

    Kang G, Oh HS, Seo JK, Kim U and Choi HR (2019) Variable admittance control of robot manipulators based on human intention. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24(3): 1023--1032

    2019

  23. [31]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(11): 1421--1444

    Keemink AQ, van der Kooij H and Stienen AH (2018) Admittance control for physical human--robot interaction. The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(11): 1421--1444

    2018

  24. [32]

    International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 11(03): 1430001

    Khan SG, Herrmann G, Al Grafi M, Pipe T and Melhuish C (2014) Compliance control and human--robot interaction: Part 1— Survey . International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 11(03): 1430001

    2014

  25. [33]

    Sensors 13(10): 12852--12902

    Khusainov R, Azzi D, Achumba IE and Bersch SD (2013) Real-time human ambulation, activity, and physiological monitoring: Taxonomy of issues, techniques, applications, challenges and limitations. Sensors 13(10): 12852--12902

    2013

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

    Kim H, Miller LM, Li Z, Roldan JR and Rosen J (2012) Admittance control of an upper limb exoskeleton-reduction of energy exchange. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE, pp. 6467--6470

    2012

  27. [35]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24(4): 1473--1484

    Kim MJ, Lee W, Choi JY, Chung G, Han KL, Choi IS, Ott C and Chung WK (2019) A passivity-based nonlinear admittance control with application to powered upper-limb control under unknown environmental interactions. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24(4): 1473--1484

    2019

  28. [36]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(8-9): 968--985

    Lachner J, Allmendinger F, Hobert E, Hogan N and Stramigioli S (2021) Energy budgets for coordinate invariant robot control in physical human--robot interaction. The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(8-9): 968--985

    2021

  29. [37]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 39(4): 514--539

    Laghi M, Ajoudani A, Catalano MG and Bicchi A (2020) Unifying bilateral teleoperation and tele-impedance for enhanced user experience. The International Journal of Robotics Research 39(4): 514--539

    2020

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics

    Lai CY (2014) Improving the transient performance in robotics force control using nonlinear damping. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. Besacon, France: IEEE, pp. 892--897

    2014

  31. [39]

    FCS Control Systems 13

    Lammertse P (2004) Admittance control and impedance control-a dual. FCS Control Systems 13

    2004

  32. [40]

    In: Procedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON)

    Landi CT, Ferraguti F, Secchi C and Fantuzzi C (2016) Tool compensation in walk-through programming for admittance-controlled robots. In: Procedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON). Florence, Italy: IEEE, pp. 5335--5340

    2016

  33. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 61(12): 6975--6985

    Lee JY, Jin M and Chang PH (2014) Variable pid gain tuning method using backstepping control with time-delay estimation and nonlinear damping. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 61(12): 6975--6985

    2014

  34. [42]

    Journal of materials science 38(13): 2825--2833

    Lee YS, Wetzel ED and Wagner NJ (2003) The ballistic impact characteristics of kevlar woven fabrics impregnated with a colloidal shear thickening fluid. Journal of materials science 38(13): 2825--2833

    2003

  35. [43]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(3): 2493--2500

    Li HY, Paranawithana I, Yang L, Lim TSK, Foong S, Ng FC and Tan UX (2018) Stable and compliant motion of physical human--robot interaction coupled with a moving environment using variable admittance and adaptive control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(3): 2493--2500

    2018

  36. [44]

    Springer

    Liberzon D (2003) Switching in systems and control, volume 190. Springer

    2003

  37. [45]

    IEEE Access 9: 50917--50925

    Lin G, Yu J and Liu J (2021) Adaptive fuzzy finite-time command filtered impedance control for robotic manipulators. IEEE Access 9: 50917--50925

    2021

  38. [46]

    Cambridge University Press

    Lynch KM and Park FC (2017) Modern robotics. Cambridge University Press

    2017

  39. [47]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 29(6): 566--572

    Marhefka D and Orin D (1999) A compliant contact model with nonlinear damping for simulation of robotic systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 29(6): 566--572

    1999

  40. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65(5): 2139--2146

    Marx S, Chitour Y and Prieur C (2019) Stability analysis of dissipative systems subject to nonlinear damping via Lyapunov techniques. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65(5): 2139--2146

    2019

  41. [49]

    IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 22(2): 745--752

    Morbi A, Ahmadi M, Chan AD and Langlois R (2013) Stability-guaranteed assist-as-needed controller for powered orthoses. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 22(2): 745--752

    2013

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, volume 59230

    Mu \ n oz Osorio JD, Casta \ n eda F, Allmendinger F and Zimmermann UE (2019) Time invariant motion controller for physical human robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Confe...

    2019

  43. [51]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 10(5): 481--491

    Mussa-Ivaldi FA and Hogan N (1991) Integrable solutions of kinematic redundancy via impedance control. The International Journal of Robotics Research 10(5): 481--491

    1991

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Navarro B, Cherubini A, Fonte A, Passama R, Poisson G and Fraisse P (2016) An iso10218-compliant adaptive damping controller for safe physical human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Stockholm, Sweden: IEEE, p...

    2016

  45. [53]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 34(3): 256--269

    Niehues TD, Rao P and Deshpande AD (2015) Compliance in parallel to actuators for improving stability of robotic hands during grasping and manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research 34(3): 256--269

    2015

  46. [54]

    Automatica 53: 416--423

    Ott C, Dietrich A and Albu-Sch \"a ffer A (2015) Prioritized multi-task compliance control of redundant manipulators. Automatica 53: 416--423

    2015

  47. [55]

    Routledge

    Painter PC and Coleman MM (2019) Fundamentals of polymer science: an introductory text. Routledge

    2019

  48. [56]

    Materials Science Forum 770: 396--401

    Peng Y, Lv B, Yuan J, Ji H, Sun L and Dong C (2013) Application and prospect of the non-newtonian fluid in industrial field. Materials Science Forum 770: 396--401

    2013

  49. [57]

    Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 216: 13--21

    Perl \'a cov \'a T and Pru V (2015) Tensorial implicit constitutive relations in mechanics of incompressible non-newtonian fluids. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 216: 13--21

    2015

  50. [58]

    Obesity Reviews 14(6): 451--462

    Plasqui G, Bonomi AG and Westerterp KR (2013) Daily physical activity assessment with accelerometers: new insights and validation studies. Obesity Reviews 14(6): 451--462

    2013

  51. [59]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(2): 1237--1244

    Raiola G, Cardenas CA, Tadele TS, De Vries T and Stramigioli S (2018) Development of a safety-and energy-aware impedance controller for collaborative robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(2): 1237--1244

    2018

  52. [60]

    IEEE Access 9: 108557--108578

    Rodr \' guez-Guerra D, Sorrosal G, Cabanes I and Calleja C (2021) Human-robot interaction review: Challenges and solutions for modern industrial environments. IEEE Access 9: 108557--108578

    2021

  53. [61]

    Journal of the Franklin Institute 358(8): 4292--4302

    Ruderman M (2021) Optimal nonlinear damping control of second-order systems. Journal of the Franklin Institute 358(8): 4292--4302

    2021

  54. [62]

    Journal of Mechanical Design 142(6)

    She Y, Song S, Su HJ and Wang J (2020) A comparative study on the effect of mechanical compliance for a safe physical human--robot interaction. Journal of Mechanical Design 142(6)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Springer

    Siciliano B, Khatib O and Kr \"o ger T (2008) Springer handbook of robotics, volume 200. Springer

    2008

  56. [64]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Sirintuna D, Aydin Y, Caldiran O, Tokatli O, Patoglu V and Basdogan C (2020) A variable-fractional order admittance controller for phri. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Paris, France: IEEE, pp. 10162--10168

    2020

  57. [65]

    Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Slotine JJE and Li W (1991) Applied nonlinear control, volume 199. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    1991

  58. [66]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 25(5): 2342--2353

    Spyrakos-Papastavridis E, Childs PR and Dai JS (2019) Passivity preservation for variable impedance control of compliant robots. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 25(5): 2342--2353

    2019

  59. [67]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 51(7): 4193--4200

    Sun T, Peng L, Cheng L, Hou ZG and Pan Y (2019) Stability-guaranteed variable impedance control of robots based on approximate dynamic inversion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 51(7): 4193--4200

    2019

  60. [68]

    In: Springer handbook of robotics

    Villani L and De Schutter J (2016) Force control. In: Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, pp. 195--220

    2016

  61. [69]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62(2): 620--635

    Xia M, Antsaklis PJ, Gupta V and Zhu F (2016) Passivity and dissipativity analysis of a system and its approximation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62(2): 620--635

    2016

  62. [70]

    IEEE Sensors Journal 22(18): 17625--17634

    Yu Y, Shi R and Lou Y (2021) Bias estimation and gravity compensation for wrist-mounted force/torque sensor. IEEE Sensors Journal 22(18): 17625--17634

    2021

  63. [71]

    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 51(5): 504--513

    Zahedi F, Arnold J, Phillips C and Lee H (2021) Variable damping control for phri: Considering stability, agility, and human effort in controlling human interactive robots. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 51(5): 504--513

    2021

  64. [72]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(2): 2724--2731

    Zahedi F, Chang D and Lee H (2022) User-adaptive variable damping control using bayesian optimization to enhance physical human-robot interaction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(2): 2724--2731

    2022

  65. [73]

    Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 165(11-12): 592--595

    Zatloukal M (2010) A simple phenomenological non-newtonian fluid model. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 165(11-12): 592--595

    2010

  66. [74]

    Physics of Fluids 32(9): 091705

    Zatloukal M (2020) Frame-invariant formulation of novel generalized newtonian fluid constitutive equation for polymer melts. Physics of Fluids 32(9): 091705

    2020

  67. [75]

    International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications 5: 89--100

    Zhan H, Huang D and Yang C (2021) Adaptive dynamic programming enhanced admittance control for robots with environment interaction and actuator saturation. International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications 5: 89--100

    2021

  68. [76]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 35(12): 1320--1329

    Zhang W (1990) The spectral density of the nonlinear damping model: single dof case. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 35(12): 1320--1329

    1990

  69. [77]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.periodwrite write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence aft...

  70. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.