The International Journal of Robotics Research

http://ijr.sagepub.com

Research Robots for Applications in Artificial Intelligence, Teleoperation and Entertainment

S.C. Jacobsen, M. Olivier, F.M. Smith, D.F. Knutti, R.T. Johnson, G.E. Colvin and W.B. Scroggin
The International Journal of Robotics Research 2004; 23; 319
DOI: 10.1177/0278364904042198

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ijr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/4-5/319

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Multimedia Archives

Additional services and information for The International Journal of Robotics Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ijr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ijr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

S.C. Jacobsen
M. Olivier
F.M. Smith
D.F. Knutti
R.T. Johnson
G.E. Colvin
W.B. Scroggin
Sarcos Research Corporation (SRC)
360 Wakara Way, SLC, Utah 84108, USA and
Center for Engineering Design (CED)
University of Utah, SLC, Utah 84104, USA
Abstract
Sarcos Research Corporation, and the Center for Engineering De-
sign at the University of Utah, have long been interested in both the
fundamental and the applied aspects of robots and other computa-
tionally driven machines. We have produced substantial numbers of
systems that function as products for commercial applications, and
as advanced research tools specifically designed for experimental
use.
This paper reviews various aspects of the design and control of
a number of robot-like machines ranging from our first projects,
the Utah Arm and the Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand, to present work on
humanoid robots and the Wearable Energetically Autonomous Robot
(WEAR). Our systems have been used in: entertainment, operator
remotization from hazardous environments, R&D, and medicine.
In addition to the robots and their subsystems, extensive work
has been devoted to command systems that drive the robots. Com-
mand systems have been: playback supervisors, teleoperation mas-
ters, and various higher level approaches based on work from the
AI community. Playback interfaces have included motion capture
mechanisms that provide movement-stream information to storage
systems configured for later, repeated and coordinated, operation of
many robots and associated mechanisms. Play-back command sys-
tems use human commands, from an “earlier” time, to command
motions that are played out, over and over, mindlessly. Teleopera-
tion“masters”, that operate in real-time with the robot, have ranged
from simple motion capture devices, to more complex force reflective
exoskeletal masters. Teleoperation interfaces have been composed
of complex kinematic structures designed to perform motions com-
patible with operator movements and are attached via appropriate
soft tissue interfaces. The masters emit lower level commands (joint
angles) in real-time using the natural intelligence and sensory sys-
tems of the operator. AI-based command sources, blend higher level
The International Journal of Robotics Research
Vol. 23, No. 4–5, April–May 2004, pp. 319-330,
DOI: 10.1177/0278364904042198
©2004 Sage Publications
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Keynote Address
Research Robots for
Applications in
Artificial Intelligence,
Teleoperation and
Entertainment
(simple) commands, with system and existing environmental states,
to make decisions for the management of the robot. As with the play-
back systems, AI-based systems are programmed earlier to perform
later operations. In the AI case, however, adaptive intelligence and
sensory capabilities reside in the robot.
Our general design approach has been to begin with the defini-
tion of desired objective behaviors, rather than the use of available
components with their predefined technical specifications. With the
technical specifications of the components necessary to achieve the
desired behaviors defined, the components are either acquired, or in
most cases, developed and built.
The control system, which includes the operation of feedback
approaches, acting in collaboration with physical machinery, is then
defined and implemented. Control is considered a function of both
feedback, and the designed-in performance of the robot’s physical
machinery. It has not been true that bad performance from physical
machine elements can be simply compensated out via innovative
control methods and faster computers.
After the completion of many projects we believe that the fi-
nal frontier(s) of robotics reside at both ends of the brain and
brawn spectrum. Both frontiers (barriers) are related to autonomy—
intelligence/computation and energy/power. Recently, energetic au-
tonomy has become a major interest at Sarcos and projects are un-
derway to develop appropriate fuel-based servo-actuators to satisfy
that need. Our objective is to develop power systems that are capa-
ble producing high performance servo-quality actuation for extended
operating times without reenergizing the system. At the other end of
the spectrum, we are working in collaboration with various groups
to supply physical robots capable of operation under the control of
advanced AI-based systems.
KEY WORDS—robotics, high performance robots, teleoper-
ation, sensors, exoskeleton, control
319
320 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004
1. Systems Developed by Sarcos and the CED
As shown in Figures 1–9, a variety of systems have been de-
signed and manufactured. Examples of products include: the
Utah Artificial Arm, electro-myographically controlled (elec-
tric; four degrees of freedom (DoFs) each; 2000 produced);
life-sized humanoid robots for Disney and other clients (hy-
draulic; from 5 to 50 DoFs each; 100 produced); large robotic
dinosaurs for the Universal Studios Jurassic Park. The Ride
in Hollywood (from 4 to 18 DoFs each; 16 produced); large
programmable robotic fountains at the Bellagio Hotel in Las
Vegas.
Systems have also been designed and fabricated for re-
search purposes, including: the TOPS, force-reflective master
and slave robot with hand, arm, torso, and head (hydraulic;
22 DoFs each), UMDH slave and master for studies in ma-
chine dexterity (pneumatic; 16 DoFs each), DA and the larger
GRLA slave arm with their force reflective master (hydraulic;
10 DoFs each, including three DoFs in each end-effector), Sar-
cos humanoid robot for AI research and Sarcos Sensuit Master
(ATR, Japan; hydraulic; 39 DoFs each), and the Primus head
and eyes with four cameras and lasers (Riken, Japan and USC;
electric; 7 DoFs). Associated body parts have also been devel-
oped including head, eyes, eyelids, ears, neck, faces, mouths,
torsos, tails, wings, arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, and toes.
Components developed have included controllers, actuators,
servo-valves, load cells, position sensors, digital sensor net-
works, tactile sensors, and complex structures.
Present efforts are focused on: WEAR, an exoskeletal
robot, which is in development along with actuation sys-
tems specialized for this project (hydraulic and combustion)
with force-reflective, close proximity teleoperational con-
trol, a fully instrumented version of WEAR intended for au-
tonomous operation, and an advanced version of Primus, a
9-DoFs high-performance electronic robotic head.
2. Behavior-Based Design
As mentioned above, it has not been true that bad performance
can be simply compensated out using innovative control meth-
ods and faster computers. Past attempts to trick energy with
algorithms, or use clever mechanisms to achieve one type
of performance at the expense of others, have always pro-
duced systems with unacceptable behavioral limitations and
behaviors.
Our general design approach has been to first define the
desired objective behaviors in a global way. We then proceed
with the specification of the characteristics of the physical
components, and related computational elements necessary
to implement control functions. These behavioral features,
although less familiar in technical environments, are in fact
the objective to a sponsor.
An approach for the design of robotic actuation systems
based upon global behavior objectives was presented by Ja-
cobsen et al. (1987). This method allows the quantitative se-
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
lection of system parameters, such as motor parameters, gear
reduction ratios, and structural stiffness and damping, which
is based upon the overall desired robot behaviors such as struc-
tural smoothness, quickness, static force accuracy, load move-
ment grace, and others. The behavior-based design (BBD)
method was investigated for the simple case briefly discussed
below and proved to be one of the reasons for our growing lack
of confidence in electrical actuation systems for ambulatory
robots. Although we did not pursue the approach for systems
of higher complexity, we have confidence in the method. We
plan to begin working in this area again, and hope that others
will also search for better methods to define the required per-
formance of subsystems based upon the desired robot perfor-
mance, rather than guessing or using successive simulation.
The process includes five steps: (1) identifying the desired
system behavioral objectives; (2) defining quantitative perfor-
mance criteria; (3) establishing a minimum complexity sys-
tem model; (4) determining parameter constraint equations;
(5) applying parameter constraint equations.
The specific example in the paper uses second-, third-, and
fifth-order linear models of a system with only one external
DoF. The approach, available at the time, used Root Locus
plots and certain system simplifications to define the charac-
teristics of the subsystems required to produce behaviors as
defined by 11 quantitative performance criteria (QPCs), as
follows:
1. structural smoothness—absence of structural
oscillations;
2. structure/actuator stability assurance;
3. static force accuracy;
4. quickness—inverse of rise time;
5. positional accuracy;
6. load movement grace;
7. strength;
8. saturation avoidance;
9. response of the load to insults—carried load;
10. response of the structure to insults—passive impedance;
11. force generation quickness—application of force.
A simple demonstration case is a robot with an electric
motor connected to a flexible beam with a mass at its ends as
used by Jacobsen et al. (1987). The robot was combined with
a controller to form the model shown in Figure 10.
The model shows a controller with position and load feed-
back, a motor, a rack-type gear reducer, a compliant arm, and
a mass/spring/damper as a load impedance.
 Jacobsen et al. / Research Robots 321

Fig. 1. Photographs showing (left) the Utah Arm, an electric prosthetic limb commanded by electro-myographic signals, and
(right) the UMDH and its master glove.

Fig. 2. Humanoid entertainment robot developed for the Carnegie science museum (left) and the Dextrous Arm (DA) and DA
Master (right), a combined 20-DoFs force-reflecting teleoperated system.

Fig. 3. Photographs showing T-Rex, one of the 16 “life form” robots developed by Sarcos for Universal Studios Jurassic Park
The Ride, CA, and, on the right, one of the 225 vector fountains installed the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas, NV.

Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
322 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004

Fig. 4. Photographs showing two humanoid robot systems developed for research in AI. Left: 34-DoFs hydraulic-driven
humanoid robot. Right: Primus™ , an electrically-driven, biomimetic robotic head.

Fig. 5. Concept drawing (left), passive structure (center) and single leg (right) of an exoskeleton system currently being
developed by SRC.

Fig. 6. Photograph showing tactile sensors for the UMDH (left) and BiASTT M , a bi-axial, multiplexed, digital extensometer.

Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Jacobsen et al. / Research Robots 323

Fig. 7. The Morph Hand can be used to grasp delicate objects as well as standard tools.

Fig. 8. The SenSuit® (left), the GRLA force reflecting 20-DoFs master–slave (center) and the space suit tester developed for
NASA (right).

Fig. 9. Photographs showing vector fountains developed by SRC during their installation at the Bellagio Hotel (left). Chore-
ographed light and water ballet at the Bellagio (right).

Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
324 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004
Additionally, the system is mounted on a base with a cer-
tain mass connected to the ground by a damper and spring.
The base can shake in response to movement of the actu-
ated systems. The model also includes a supplemental mass
(touching) that can be connected to alter the impedance seen
by the arm. Using these additions, the approach can include
additional QPCs such as:
1. response to shove;
2. stability margin when touching external loads;
3. response to base shaking;
4. performance in operation with a compliant base;
5. operation with non-collocated sensors;
6. intrinsic qualities.
The analysis defines a number of equations that receive
QPCs as inputs and which produce relationships between
model parameters necessary to achieve desired behaviors.
3. Control Approach
High-performance systems, especially high-performance,
force-reflective teleoperators with many DoFs, require control
approaches with numerous capabilities. The following sec-
tion is a discussion of specific performance capabilities, but
not how they were achieved. Ideally, a synthesis approach,
such as BBD, would make the process rigorous. However, in
reality, we attempt to define the objectives, and then work iter-
atively, via experimentation, analysis, and simulation in order
to achieve a compromise solution. The compromise produces
the best overall robot performance that can be achieved given
the realities of the hardware, the controller, and the method(s).
Our approach considers seven levels of control subdivided
into three categories. The categories are (A) variable control,
(B) intrinsic control, and (C) power systems control.
3.1. Category A
Variable control is subdivided into two levels: command signal
production, and variable autonomic.
Level 1: Command Signal Production (brain-like). Com-
mands in this group can be generated in three ways:
(a) Playback. The robot is commanded via signals from a
pre-programmed, stored database. Commands, which
are defined, are generated at an earlier time by an op-
erator using a motion capture master of some sort. No
real-time interaction occurs between the robot and the
operator.
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
(b) Teleoperation. Real-time commands are issued by
an operator using a force-reflective, motion capture,
master. Also included are vision systems and other
application-specific subsystems. The master sends out
commands (joint angles) with low latencies at high fre-
quencies to insure stability. With the proper communi-
cation system, the operator can be great distances from
the tele-robot. For example, the Utah DA can operate
20,000 feet below the ocean surface with the operator
on a shipboard command station.
(c) Artificial intelligence. The AI controller issues real-
time commands to the robot. A typical system includes:
(i) arrays of externally-looking sensors which assess
the state of the environment; (ii) high-level commands
from a local operator at the beginning of a mission;
(iii) computational elements that formulate strategies
for execution of the task by the robot, operating in its
environment, with contingencies to deal with unfore-
seen circumstances. AI systems are typically thought of
as capable of operating “intelligently”, for substantial
duration, without continual commands from a human
operator. In order to achieve the desired objectives in
the presence of realities imposed by the various states
of the machine and its environment, AI commands can
be (i) high level from the past (go get the code book),
(ii) real-time changes in strategy, or (iii) real-time com-
mands from the AI controller.
Level 2: Variable Autonomic Control. The controller can
adjust system characteristics, but slower than operational
speeds and slower than command signals. Level 2 can include
various functions such as: (i) self-modeling along with a dis-
play of variations in system properties (slow alterations up
to failure of a component); (ii) gravity compensation (during
orientation variations); (iii) compensation for system varia-
tions; (iv) force gain adjustment in teleoperation; (v) manage-
ment of mechanical impedance and stability during contact
with external objects; (vi) ensuring stability during loading
insults; (vii) coordination of joints; (viii) trading off proper-
ties to achieve quickness versus smoothness during variable
speed movements.
3.2. Category B
Intrinsic control is subdivided into three additional levels:
fixed autonomic control, servo-control, and passive intrinsic
properties. Categories B and C are designed for maximum
simplicity and autonomy with respect to category A. The sys-
tem should be operational with category A systems in a non-
functional state.
Level 3: Fixed Autonomic Control. This uses fixed pa-
rameter settings (via sensing or physical constraints such as
stops) for: (i) strength and work space limiting—structures
and controls; (ii) gravity compensation; (iii) control of fixed

Fig. 10. One-dimensional linear effector model.
impedance at joints (first the Utah Arm, then the Disney An-
imatronics); (iv) achievement of grace in movement while
minimizing internal structural loads; (v) ensuring stability
in force-reflective teleoperation, and trajectories; (vi) main-
taining stability while coordinating multi-jointed compliant
robotic structures.
Level 4: Servo-Control. This manages single-joint actu-
ators using PID-like approaches with certain included non-
linearities. Levels 2 and 3 might have hooks into level 4 in
order to adjust characteristics such as joint impedance.
Level 5: Passive Intrinsic Properties. Passive intrinsic
properties are a result of inherent characteristics of the ma-
chine being controlled. Note that, although ignored by many,
passive intrinsic properties substantially determine ultimate
system performance via features such as kinematics config-
uration, mass distribution of moving elements, stiffness and
damping in structures, stiction and/or backlash in joints, and
other factors. Note that, in terms of behaviors, damping pro-
duced via velocity feedback or physical viscosity produces
the same effect. More importantly, poor, designed-in, physi-
cal machine properties, especially non-linear ones, can per-
manently compromise machine performance. Very often it is
impossible to compensate out inbred properties such as exces-
sive stiction, excessive backlash, excessive mass, poor mass
distribution, and others.
3.3. Category C
Category C (power systems) is subdivided into two additional
levels: actuation, and energy storage systems. These two levels
are fundamental determinants of both performance and the
potential for energetic autonomy.
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Jacobsen et al. / Research Robots 325
Level 6: Actuation Systems. Actuation systems produce the
speed, strength, bandwidth, impedance, stiction, and backlash
characteristics required for effective implementation of level 1
commands. Actuators are also the major consumers of energy
and are typically prime determinants of weight. Furthermore,
support systems for actuators, such as control hardware and
electronics, along with conduits (wiring and power), add to
the weight, cost, and complexity of any robot.
Level 7: Energy Storage Systems. Energy storage systems
are the prime determinants of maximum available power us-
age rates and fundamentally limit the range/duration of op-
eration of any ambulatory, or otherwise energetically au-
tonomous system. Because of the fundamental limitations
of electrical energy storage systems, as well as electronic
actuators, these systems are inappropriate for practical au-
tonomous, dynamic operation. Hydraulic systems are more
suitable if driven by fuel-based hydraulic pumps coupled to
hydraulic valves and actuators, but these are not the long-term
answer either. Therefore, many groups are investigating alter-
native systems based upon the use of fuels to drive servo-level
performance actuators.
4. Discussion
A review of a number of specific systems is presented be-
low. Specific characteristics are reviewed, such as application,
motivation for the development, system configuration, DoFs,
control approach, actuation and energy storage and modula-
tion systems, speed, strength, grace, sensing systems used,
and others.
326 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004
4.1. Utah Arm
The Utah Arm (Figure 1) is a high-performance, battery-
powered, electric motor-driven and electro-myographic
(EMG) signal commanded, 3-DoFs (elbow, forearm rotation,
terminal device open-and-close) upper extremity prosthesis
for above-the-elbow amputees and bilateral amputees.
Similar to other systems developed by the team from SRC
and the CED, the Utah Arm implements hardware-based
low-level control functions that provide desired behaviors
including: (i) an actively controlled “dangling”, which per-
mits the arm to swing freely while the wearer is walking;
(ii) an activity-type-based, non-linear gain parameter adjust-
ment that improves the performance of the arm during high-
speed, low-precision movements (low impedance), as well as
for operations that require high precision but low speed (high
impedance).
4.2. Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand and Master
The multi-fingered, high-performance, quasi-anthropomor-
phic, UMDH and the Utah Hand Master (UHM) (Figure 1)
were developed to provide the research community with
multi-purpose tools for the study of machine dexterity, rang-
ing from the investigation of concepts in manipulation theory
and control strategies, to tactile sensing.
In as much as it was conceived as a provocation to facilitate
physical experiments of previously untested theories on dex-
terity, the system was designed to have sufficient functional
richness to allow researchers to work without being unduly
encumbered by fundamental performance limitations of the
system. For this reason, the UMDH has many DoFs (16), very
high active and passive performance characteristics (compara-
ble to, and in some cases exceeding, human capabilities), was
designed to be a vehicle for a broad variety of tactile sensing
element designs, and was made modular and reconfigurable
to a limited extent.
The UMDH itself is configured to be (i) tendon-actuated
(to “remotize” the actuators and servo-valves), (ii) electro-
pneumatically powered, (iii) equipped with four digits (three
fingers and one thumb, each having four DoFs), and (iv) quasi-
anthropomorphic (Jacobsen et al. 1986). It is designed to
achieve the speed, strength, and grace of motion (an intrinsic
level of control), required to perform dynamic manipulation
on a broad range of human-scale objects.
For instance, in order to perform manipulation tasks on
slippery hard or fragile objects, the individual digits have
been configured to achieve operational frequencies larger than
60 Hz for the most distal DoFs. In order to permit handling
of human-scale objects, such as a styrofoam cup, a metal rod,
or lubricated surfaces, the UMDH was designed to generate
large finger tip forces up to 27 N.
The desirable qualities, outlined above, have been achieved
by using antagonistic tendons, pulleys with low friction,
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
actuators with low piston mass and stiction (glass cylin-
der/graphite piston) supplied by high bandwidth, high flow
rate, zero-stiction servo-valves that allow the actuators to op-
erate as a force source.
The UHM (Figure 1) measures the motion of the thumb,
index, middle and ring fingers of the operator’s hand by means
of Hall effect sensors mounted on a carbon-fiber composite
exoskeleton structure, which is attached to the surface of a
glove. The UHM linkage is designed such that the exact lo-
cation of the attachment pads does not affect the joint angle
measurement; thereby, accommodating a wide variety of hand
sizes.
4.3. Dextrous Arm and Force-Reflective Master
The DA slave and the fully force-reflective dextrous arm mas-
ter (DAM) (Figure 2) have been developed for a broad range of
applications where high fidelity dexterity and proprioception
must be achieved for conducting operations in environments
that are inhospitable to people. For instance, in its original con-
figuration the DA and DAM were developed to perform under-
water tasks at a depth of up to 20,000 feet (substantially deeper
than humans can dive). The system is also well suited for tasks
such as (i) nuclear plant maintenance, (ii) hazardous waste
handling, (iii) high-voltage live-power line maintenance, and
other applications in harsh environments. In summary, the DA
and DAM are able to carry out tasks with little or no oper-
ator training, and are therefore able to provide certainty in
unstructured environments.
When used alone the DAM can command and receive sig-
nals from virtual slave manipulators operated in synthetic
environments.
The DA is a human-scaled, 10-DoFs manipulator (with
three intersecting axes of rotation at each of the shoulder and
the wrist, and one axis at the elbow joint), which is kinemat-
ically equivalent to a human being (Jacobsen et al. 1991). Its
anthropomorphic configuration makes its use totally intuitive
for the operator and ensures that its “reach space” is not very
different from its workspace (close to being the same as that
of a human).
The arm and its the end-effector are hydraulically powered
using low stiction rotary actuators and a supply pressure of ap-
proximately 21 MPa. The hydraulic fluid flow to the actuators
is modulated by means of very high bandwidth servo-valves
developed by SRC (Smith et al. 1992). These components,
combined with high-resolution force and position sensing at
each joint, make the arm nimble, easy to control, and precise.
For instance, the arm can be made to free swing, with low
damping under the influence of gravity, and can also be used
to thread a needle, put a nut on a bolt, pick up an egg, or screw
a light bulb into a socket.
Other impressive capabilities include: (i) lifting up to 180 N
minimum, anywhere in its workspace; (ii) the operator in the
master being able to detect as little as a 0.15 N force applied to

the slave (the system is far more sensitive than this, but that is
what the human can feel when using it); (iii) applying torque
of up to 95 N m at the end-effector; (iv) achieving unloaded
joint speeds up to 600 deg s−1 at the wrist joints and 450 deg
s−1 at the elbow and shoulder joints. In addition, its ranges of
motion are comparable to, and in some cases exceed, those of
a human.
Several modular 3-DoFs end-effectors have been devel-
oped and used on the DA. Each of these end-effectors was
equipped with thumb up–down and side-to-side rotation mo-
tions, and two fingers that moved like a two jaw gripper. All
three DoFs were equipped with force and position sensors.
The most interesting end-effector developed for the DA was
the Morph Hand (Figure 7), which has a 2-DFs thumb (again
with up–down and side-to-side rotation) and two fingers that
can be operated as a parallel jaw gripper. It possessed an addi-
tional “DoF” in the form of reconfigurable finger tips, which
could be oriented straight out as in a standard two jaw grip-
per, and could also be bent over towards the thumb at a right
angle (a hook-like configuration) to facilitate trapping spheri-
cal and cylindrical shapes; thereby, minimizing the grip force
necessary to effectively handle/grasp a large class of objects.
The combination of a dexterous end-effector installed on
the end of an anthropomorphic arm makes the DA system
inherently adapted to work with standard human tools in en-
vironments and workspaces originally configured for use by
humans. Viewed in the context of full-system costs, an arm
able to avoid the requirement of custom-designed specialized
tooling can result in significant overall savings, in addition to
providing superior capabilities.
Different control methods include: (i) position and force
feedback with PID servo-control loops; (ii) gravity com-
pensation, so that the operator does not have to carry the
weight of the slave and master while performing dextrous
tasks; (iii) “Tap Response”, which provides enhanced force
feedback to the operator when the slave contacts an object;
(iv) on-the-fly force-reflection ratio scaling capability to ad-
just the relative strengths of the master and slave consistent
with the application requirements; (v) a novel control strat-
egy that allows the master–slave system to have significantly
higher inter-system stiffness and low slew drag, making the
system fast and graceful when moving freely, and have high
impedance when in contact with fixed objects.
4.4. Humanoids for Entertainment
The SRC humanoid robots are the most advanced and life-like
anthropomorphic robotic figures in the world. SRC involve-
ment with humanoid robots began in the 1980s when Disney
wanted to improve upon their audio-animatronic robots by
making the motions more graceful and realistic.
SRC has supplied its humanoid robot to numerous other
customers. For instance, to introduce their newly redesigned
Taurus in 1995, the Ford Motor Company sought an innova-
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Jacobsen et al. / Research Robots 327
tive way to attract and educate customers using high technol-
ogy. “Sarcos”, as the robot was named, traveled North Amer-
ica and Europe for the major car shows from 1995 to 1997.
“Sarcos” was operated by two methods: live, real-time tele-
operator control, and the playback of pre-programmed skits.
During interactive segments, a stand-up comedian in a Sarcos
SenSuit® controlled the robot. The SenSuit® and the exhibit
area were equipped with a series of cameras, monitors, mi-
crophones, and speakers that allowed the robot perceive and
actively interact with Ford spokes-models and visitors to the
Ford display. The SenSuit® was fitted with special helmet-
mounted displays, headphones, and a microphone to provide
the operator with a “robot view” and facilitate communication
and interactive body movements.
SRC humanoid robots can be programmed to recreate
smooth, graceful, fast human actions so effectively that they
are frequently mistaken for human actors. Under a contract
with the Disney organization, SRC and its affiliates provided
approximately 90 anthropomorphic robots for European Dis-
neyland, as well as Disney World and Disneyland. These
robots are constructed in a modular fashion, typically have
between 12 and 52 DoFs, and are actuated using both pneu-
matic and hydraulic power. They have moving arms, legs,
torsos, necks, eyes, and mouths and are capable of a variety
of facial expressions.
4.5. Life Forms and Non-Humanoid (Fountains) for
Entertainment
In 1994, SRC was asked to provide Universal Studios with
a collection of 16 robotic dinosaur figures for the Jurassic
Park Ride attraction in Los Angeles, CA, which opened in
May 1996. These animated dinosaur figures are exceptionally
realistic in both their appearance and their movements, and
were all the more challenging, since they were viewable from
all sides in many cases, and they did not wear clothing.
The development of these figures presented difficult engi-
neering and control problems which involved multiple con-
straints such as: (i) operational seven days per week, year
round, in harsh environments (e.g. water spray, direct sun
exposure, partial and total submersion); (ii) stringent safety
factors; (iii) lots of variety (of the 16 figures, 13 were differ-
ent from the rest, varying in weight from 30 kg to 35,000 kg);
(iv) four levels of control (low-level force, position, and veloc-
ity, figure level, system level, and ride level); (v) demanding
aesthetic requirements.
A simulation-based design methodology was implemented
from the outset and was used throughout the design phases
of the project. A three-dimensional (3D) computer model of
each figure was constructed, complete with the DoFs that were
anticipated. Then these models were programmed with show
programs by the customer’s creative team using the SenSuit®
as the human–dinosaur interface (Figure 8). This approach
provided the customer with a tool to work out “the look” of
328 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004
the ride in a virtual environment with virtual dinosaurs and
to obtain management buy-off, and at the same time it pro-
vided the engineers with a reliable, customer-generated mo-
tion database (position, velocity, and acceleration versus time,
and ROMs) which could then be used to construct the engi-
neering models of the figure designs and to calculate the static
and dynamic loads applied to the various structures when per-
forming their show programs.
In 1996, SRC began work to develop a robotic fountain for
the Bellagio Casino in Las Vegas, NV. Each fountain is 3 m
tall, weighs 1400 kg, has four lights that move with the nozzle,
and has five controlled DoFs, including: (i) an adjustable water
jet height (0–27 m); (ii) a two-axis vectoring gimbal (electrical
motor actuated); (iii) a 2-DoFs pneumatically actuated lift
device that can locate the gimbal in “day”, “night”, and fully
submerged positions.
SRC built 225 of the waving fountains and installed them in
the summer of 1998. The fountains are in the water 24 h a day
and operate up to 14 h per day. Choreographed music, light,
and the synchronized “water ballet”, such as the one illustrated
in Figure 9, blend to create a unique show experience.
4.6. Humanoids for R&D and Primus Head
SRC has developed two specialized humanoid figures for
research purposes. The first is a 39-DoFs, pelvis-mounted,
hydraulically actuated figure developed for the Kawato Dy-
namic Brain Project (KDBP), under the direction of the Japan
Science and Technology Corporation (JST). The JST/KDBP
figure (Figure 4) is being used in advanced computational
algorithm research related to the adaptive learning of sys-
tem dynamics for model-based control of vision-based tasks,
such as juggling, human movement tracking and emulation,
and other high-level control algorithms.
The JST/KDBP figure is pelvis-mounted on a movable
base. As a result, unlike the entertainment humanoid figures,
which are fixed at the feet, the legs of the JST/KDBP figure
can emulate walking and running motions.
The second research figure is the NASA Space Suit Tester
(Figure 8). NASA’s research interests centered on two main
areas, as follows: (i) what were the force-versus-position char-
acteristics of each of the spacesuit’s joints; (ii) what were the
fatigue capabilities of the spacesuits. Both of these had been
explored using human operators in the past, but it was difficult
to obtain consistent and reliable results. There was clearly a
need for a less subjective, more repeatable method of obtain-
ing the desired information. To address this problem, SRC
designed and fabricated a system that was a hydraulically
(using water–glycol mixture to avoid oil contamination of the
very expensive spacesuit in the event of a leak) actuated fig-
ure having greater than human strength, and which could go
through the human ranges of motion in a controlled, repro-
ducible manner, while sensing the force and position at each
joint.
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Primus™ (Figure 4) is an electrically-driven, biomimetic
robotic head that has human-like performance characteris-
tics. Primus™ is designed for AI research and applications
involving head motion, vision, and hearing. For this purpose,
each independent eye has two DoFs: (i) 75◦ side-to-side and
(ii) 75◦ up–down. These allow both conjugate and disjunc-
tive eye movements and can operate at up to 26 Hz for small
amplitude motions and up to 3.3 Hz for full range of motion.
Each eye is also equipped with: (i) separate wide angle and
foveal cameras, the outputs of which are combined to emulate
the characteristics of the human eye; and (ii) two lasers which
add alignment, aiming, and ranging capabilities. The neck has
three actuated DoFs that emulate the motions of the human
head with ranges of motion of up to 100◦ at 2 Hz.
The Primus™ head can have its appearance altered through
the use of interchangeable head coverings, which can be used
to create different personalities. Moreover, the system has
been designed to allow the future implementation of: (i) ac-
tuated plate-based shell and soft coverings to permit mouth
motion and facial expressions; (ii) inertial sensing modules
(multi-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes); and (iii) micro-
phones for binaural hearing.
4.7. Exoskeletal Robot
The ability to augment human performance by means of me-
chanical systems is an ongoing quest. Despite much effort, the
development of efficient, powered, legged machines, which
can augment the capability of a human operator and, at the
same time, achieve a large range of autonomy, has remained
an elusive target.
SRC, in collaboration with the CED at the University
of Utah, Boston Dynamics Inc., the University of Southern
California and Reaction Engineering International, has re-
cently undertaken the development of a series of human-scale
WEARs (Figure 5).
The efficient mobility of legged machines over rugged ter-
rain as well as the ability of the WEAR to increase the effec-
tive stamina, mobility, speed and strength of the user is the
basic motivation for this development. These qualities can
in turn open the door to a very broad range of applications,
such as: (i) carrying heavy payloads or equipment over ex-
tended ranges, or for long periods of time, while reducing
operator fatigue and risk of injuries; (ii) increasing the oper-
ator’s mobility while transporting protective shields for heat,
flames, radiation, and chemical and biological contaminants;
(iii) providing assistance during physical rehabilitation ther-
apy, as well as a new means of locomotion for people suffering
from neuromuscular disorders.
The technical challenge is substantial. WEAR systems re-
quire: (i) compact, robust, lightweight, kinematically and dy-
namically compatible structures; (ii) suitable interfaces be-
tween the machine and the operator’s soft tissues as well as
haptic interfaces; (iii) new control strategies that minimize

the impact of the system on the user’s mobility; (iv) the inte-
gration of a large number of sensors; (v) compact, integrated,
high-power density actuators, which efficiently convert en-
ergy from high-energy density portable fuel sources, while
delivering a high bandwidth servo-controllable output.
The general conceptual configuration is illustrated in Fig-
ure 5. WEAR includes (1) a base unit (BU) and (2) application-
specific packages (ASPs).
The BU is a self-contained, human-compatible powered
robot that includes structures, actuators and the energy re-
serves required for energetically autonomous operation, as
well as sensors, structures, and controllers, which can be com-
bined to form an exoskeletal system with various configura-
tions of legs, torso, and arms. The ASP, which is attached to
the BU, consists of outer coverings tailored for various appli-
cations such as those briefly discussed above.
The structure is designed to be kinematically compatible
with the human skeleton, and the system’s mass properties and
passive characteristics are set to ensure that the gait of the user
is not significantly altered while using the system. Figure 5
shows a photograph of a prototype structure having the desired
kinematics. So far, this structure has been used to investigate
actuator and sensor placement and conduits routing, it has
been instrumented with joint position sensors and used as a
motion capture system (similar to the SenSuit® ), it has been
used to experimentally confirm its compatibility with human
kinematics and ROMs, and it has been used to identify suitable
soft tissue attachment points.
Work on the kinematics configuration of a full-body
WEAR is ongoing, but the first series of fully powered sys-
tems will consist of a lower extremity (legs and pelvis) WEAR
(referred to as LE-WEAR).
Figure 5 shows a photograph of a LE-WEAR experimental
leg. The leg is equipped with hydraulically actuated knee and
hip joints, which allow a peak speed of approximately 500 deg
s−1 and torque of up to approximately 230 N m at the knee
joint. Position and torque sensors are also used for control.
The first complete LE-WEAR system will have 14 DoFs,
and will be hydraulically actuated using an external hydraulic
supply (tethered system). The system is being designed to
allow an operator to perform tasks such as climbing stairs, as
well as to walk at speeds in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 m s−1 on flat
and hard terrain while carrying a load of approximately 60–
70 kg, and, most of all, to perform such tasks while minimizing
the forces exerted by the payload and the WEAR structure
on the operator. Initial tests will be performed on a large-
scale treadmill developed by Sarcos as a mobility interface
for synthetic environments.
The second generation of LE-WEAR will weigh approxi-
mately 35 kg (not including the fuel), will have performance
characteristics that are comparable to those of the first gen-
eration tethered system, and, most importantly, will achieve
energetic autonomy by using a new type of chemo-hydraulic
supply that is currently under development. The new actua-
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Jacobsen et al. / Research Robots 329
tors used in the second generation LE-WEAR will achieve
unprecedented performance, including high power density,
servo-controllability, and high conversion efficiency, by using
fast energy extraction mechanisms, high-energy density gas
or liquid fuels (e.g. propane), and new system configurations
that minimize the number of inefficient energy conversion
steps and also allow high bandwidth operation.
Preliminary experimental tests and dynamic simulations
indicate the following. The overall power density is in the
range of 150–300 W kg−1 (i.e., including all energy conversion
and modulation steps). The overall conversion efficiencies are
of the order of 10–20%. The system will have low quiescent
power consumption, and servo-quality force control will be
obtained. Details of the operation and performance of these
new actuators will be presented elsewhere.
A hierarchical control architecture similar to that described
earlier is being developed and will be implemented on the
WEAR system. The most basic level starts with the achieve-
ment of desired passive characteristics, supplemented by low-
level PID position–force control (with non-linear and model-
based inclusions) to manage individual joint actuators and
supplies. Other layers of control will include: (i) distributed
non-linear “get-out-of-the-way” control aimed at minimizing
the contact force between the human and the machine and
to produced the desired force amplification; (ii) gravity com-
pensation, and fault recognition; (iii) adaptive control for joint
coordination and gait emulation, as well as for compensation
of operator and system variations.
4.8. Sensor Systems
While developing the various sensor-intensive, servo-
controlled systems discussed in the previous sections, the SRC
team encountered a recurring problem: sensors and wiring
harnesses have high costs and poor reliability. The entertain-
ment robotics projects alone have used over 4000 sensors and
2500 actuators. In these systems, the sensors have accounted
for up to 30% of the system cost, and up to half of the system
failures have occurred in the supporting wiring harnesses and
connectors.
In order to address these problems, since the early 1980s
SRC has been working on the development of a series of high-
resolution, absolute, digital multiplexed output, compact, ro-
bust, high bandwidth, low-cost sensors. These efforts have
resulted in a new generation of strain, rotation, multi-axis
strain, load, shear stress, pressure, and other types of sen-
sors, which are ideally suited for high-performance robots and
other information-driven machines that move. Details have
been presented in Jacobsen et al. (1998).
Acknowledgments
Support for the work described in this paper has been
provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
330 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / April–May 2004
Agency (contracts F33615-82-K5125, DABT63-98-C-0048,
and MDA972-01-C-0023), the Office of Naval Research (con-
tract N00014-82-K-0367), the Department of the US Navy,
the National Institute of Health, the Department of Veter-
ans’ Affairs Rehabilitation R&D, Westinghouse Idaho Nu-
clear Company (Department of Energy funding), Bell Lab-
oratories, Universal Studios, the Bellagio Hotel and Casino,
Carnegie Science Museum, Ford Motor Corporation, as well
as ATR and Riken Japan.
References
Jacobsen, S. C., Iversen, E. K., Knutti, D. F., Johnson, R. T.,
and Biggers, K. B. 1986. Design of the Utah/MIT dextrous
hand. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, April 7–
10, pp. 1520–1534.
Downloaded from http://ijr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008
© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Jacbosen, S. C., Smith, C. C., Biggers, K. B., and Iversen,
E. K. 1987. Behavior-based design of robot effectors. Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Robotics
Research, Santa Cruz, CA, August 10–15, pp. 41–55.
Jacobsen, S. C., Smith, F. M., and Backman, D. K. 1991.
High performance, dextrous telerobotic manipulator with
force reflection. Proceedings of the Intervention/ROV ’91
Conference, Hollywood, FL, May 21–23, pp. 213–218.
Jacobsen, S. C., Olivier, M., Maclean, B. J., Mladejovsky,
M. G., and Whitaker, M. R. 1998. Multi-regime integrated
transducer networks. Proceedings of the Solid-State Sen-
sor and Actuator Workshop, Hilton Head Island, SC, June
8–11, pp. 136–143.
Smith, F., Jacobsen, S., Potter, D., and Davis, C. 1992. Minia-
ture high performance servo-valves. Proceedings of the
International Fluid Power Exposition and Technical Con-
ference, Chicago, IL, March 24–26.