Journals / Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science / 2013 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5

Lightweight wireless protocol based on IEEE 802.11 for delay sensitive telerobotic systems

Pages
1394–1410
Publication Date
2013-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We measured the standard deviation of packet delays and observed that it increases with the packet size, and this increase is faster than the increase in mean packet delay.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, we consider wireless telerobotic systems and protocol development for low-delay wireless communication.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the control system measurements, actuator delays do degrade the system's performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We measured the standard deviation of packet delays and observed that it increases with the packet size, and this increase is faster than the increase in mean packet delay.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Telerobotics · wireless communication protocols · Telerobotics

Abstract

In this paper, we consider wireless telerobotic systems and protocol development for low-delay wireless communication. Telerobotics can be defined as the control of robot arms from a remote location. In a telerobotic system, there is a robot arm to be controlled that is identified as the `slave arm', and a remote operator at a distant location using a robotic manipulator that is called the `master arm'. In the control system measurements, actuator delays do degrade the system's performance. Therefore, communication delays between the master and slave arms, and their minimization, are of extreme importance in telerobotics. In this paper, we first develop a new wireless communication protocol, the lightweight wireless protocol (LWP), designed on top of the 802.11 media access control layer. This low-delay wireless LWP protocol is implemented on an embedded system (AirDrop-LWP) without an operating system and its associated overhead. Finally, 2 AirDrop-LWP--embedded systems running this low-delay wireless LWP protocol are used to build a telerobotic system with a Mitsubishi RV-2AJ industrial robot. The LWP protocol is also tested on a robot car controlled by an AirDrop-LWP card as a slave arm and a standard PC as a master arm. The key features of the LWP are a reduced packet size, simple protocol stack, predictive compression of operator movements, and prediction of lost data packets. The LWP protocol is compared with the user datagram protocol and significant performance improvements are observed: a reduced delay of up to 50% and an additional 20% lower delay via compression. Variation in the packet delay times is also an important parameter for the wireless control system. As the standard deviation of the packet delay times increase, and becomes less and less predictable, the resulting telerobotic system will be more and more difficult to operate. We measured the standard deviation of packet delays and observed that it increases with the packet size, and this increase is faster than the increase in mean packet delay.

Özet

In this paper, we consider wireless telerobotic systems and protocol development for low-delay wireless communication. Telerobotics can be defined as the control of robot arms from a remote location. In a telerobotic system, there is a robot arm to be controlled that is identified as the `slave arm', and a remote operator at a distant location using a robotic manipulator that is called the `master arm'. In the control system measurements, actuator delays do degrade the system's performance. Therefore, communication delays between the master and slave arms, and their minimization, are of extreme importance in telerobotics. In this paper, we first develop a new wireless communication protocol, the lightweight wireless protocol (LWP), designed on top of the 802.11 media access control layer. This low-delay wireless LWP protocol is implemented on an embedded system (AirDrop-LWP) without an operating system and its associated overhead. Finally, 2 AirDrop-LWP--embedded systems running this low-delay wireless LWP protocol are used to build a telerobotic system with a Mitsubishi RV-2AJ industrial robot. The LWP protocol is also tested on a robot car controlled by an AirDrop-LWP card as a slave arm and a standard PC as a master arm. The key features of the LWP are a reduced packet size, simple protocol stack, predictive compression of operator movements, and prediction of lost data packets. The LWP protocol is compared with the user datagram protocol and significant performance improvements are observed: a reduced delay of up to 50% and an additional 20% lower delay via compression. Variation in the packet delay times is also an important parameter for the wireless control system. As the standard deviation of the packet delay times increase, and becomes less and less predictable, the resulting telerobotic system will be more and more difficult to operate. We measured the standard deviation of packet delays and observed that it increases with the packet size, and this increase is faster than the increase in mean packet delay.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOKER, O., GÜMÜŞKAYA, H., ULAŞ, C., YILMAZ, B. T. (2013). Lightweight wireless protocol based on IEEE 802.11 for delay sensitive telerobotic systems. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5, 1394–1410. https://ajindex.com/articles/188510

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. F. Eady, Implementing 802.11 with Microcontrollers: Wireless Networking for Embedded Systems Designers, Burlington, MA, USA, Newnes, 2005
  2. F. Eady, Networking and Internetworking with Microcontrollers, Burlington, MA, USA, Newnes, 2004
  3. O. Toker, “Design, implementation and performance analysis of high performance telerobotic systems using real time communication protocols on wireless networks”, Final Report of Project EEEAG-108E091, Turkish National Science and Technology Foundation, 2010
  4. J. Elsner, M. Braun, S. Nagel, K. Nagaraj, F.K. Jondral, “Wireless networks in-the-loop: software radio as the enabler”, Software Defined Radio Forum Technical Conference, 2009
  5. Y. Liu, M. Mazurkiewicz, M. Kwitek, “A study towards reliability- and delay-critical wireless communication for RoboCup robotic soccer application”, International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, pp. 633–636, 2007
  6. L. Hohl, R. Tellez, O. Michel, A.J. Ijspeert, “Aibo and Webots: simulation, wireless remote control and controller transfer”, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 54, pp. 472–485, 2006
  7. Z. Fang, G. Tong, Y. Hu, X. Xu, “An embedded platform for intelligent mobile robot”, Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, Vol. 2, pp. 9104–9108, 2006
  8. F. Zeiger, N. Kraemer, M. Sauer, K. Schilling, “Challenges in realizing ad-hoc networks based on wireless LAN with mobile robots”, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks and Workshops, pp. 632–639, 2008
  9. F. Zeiger, F.N. Kraemer, K. Schilling, “Commanding mobile robots via wireless ad-hoc networks — a comparison of four ad-hoc routing protocol implementations”, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 590–595, 2008 [10] F. Babet, L. Josserand, G. Poisson, Y. Toure, “Closed loop control for a tele-echography system with communication delays”, Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, pp. 356–361, 2008
  10. H. Rissanen, J. Mahonen, K. Haataja, M. Johansson, J. Mielikainen, P. Toivanen, “Designing and implementing an intelligent Bluetooth-enabled robot car”, IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks, pp. 1–6, 2009
  11. G. Mester, “Wireless sensor-based control of mobile robots motion”, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics, pp. 81–84