2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.conengprac.2017.10.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust fulfillment of constraints in robot visual servoing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main limitation of the proposed ASMC method is the chattering drawback, although it is partially mitigated in this work introducing a firstorder low-pass filter between the original constraint function σ i and the modified constraint function φ i , see (18) and (19). Therefore, although φ i theoretically switches its value every sampling period, the original constraint function σ i is significantly smoothed, see Fig.…”
Section: Advantages and Limitations Of The Proposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The main limitation of the proposed ASMC method is the chattering drawback, although it is partially mitigated in this work introducing a firstorder low-pass filter between the original constraint function σ i and the modified constraint function φ i , see (18) and (19). Therefore, although φ i theoretically switches its value every sampling period, the original constraint function σ i is significantly smoothed, see Fig.…”
Section: Advantages and Limitations Of The Proposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed method is based on satisfying a set of constraints to properly perform the desired surface contact conditioning. In this sense, the authors previously presented in [17] a conventional SMC to fulfill equality constraints, whereas in [18] developed a non-conventional SMC to fulfill inequality constraints. In both cases, however, the control application was focused on robot visual servoing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By combining different visual servo structures or designing a new VS structure, the object is always in the camera FOV, such as combining IBVS and PBVS approach, 21 switching approach, 22 zooming VS approach, 23 direct VS approach, 24 and IBVS with a Kalman-neural-network filtering approach. 25 Besides, some advanced control laws are designed to deal with the FOV constraint problem, such as sliding mode control, 26,27 model predictive control, [28][29][30] prescribed performance control, 31,32 switched controller, 6,33 and so on. Furthermore, some proposals are relying on robot-camera configuration, such as multicamera scheme, 34 the light field camera scheme, 35 and so on.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chaumette (2002Chaumette ( , 2004 and Tahri et al (2015) proposed the use of image moments due to their ability to represent object regions, although the rotational motions around the X-and Y-axes simultaneously with the translational motions along the same axes remain a key issue. Other approaches are focused on introducing image or joint constraints in order to avoid reaching the joint limits (Marchand, Rizzo, and Chaumette (1996); Han and Park (2013)) or the loss of the visual features vector (Muñoz-Benavent et al (2018); Qiu, Hu, and Liang (2019)). A different approach was presented in Solanes et al (2013), which used the duality of LQRlike controllers (Armesto et al (2015)) and an Extended Kalman Filter Smoother (Todorov (2005(Todorov ( , 2008; Zima et al (2013)) to develop a novel Reference Filtering Control Strategy (RFCS) able to significantly increase the solution reachability of the classic Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS) controller.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%