Friction characteristics and servo control of a linear peristaltic actuator

  • João Falcão CarneiroEmail author
  • Fernando Gomes de Almeida


Despite presenting several inherent advantages, pneumatic actuators are typically discarded for applications where fine motion control is required. This is mainly caused by friction effects caused by piston and rod seals, namely the discontinuities found in friction forces around zero velocity. These effects are very hard to predict and thus to counteract using conventional control laws. This paper explores the use of a different pneumatic actuation solution, a pneumatic linear peristaltic actuator (PLPA), to overcome this problem. The solution envisaged has several potential advantages over conventional or low-friction actuators. Since literature is scarce on this topic, this paper presents the working principle and the model of a PLPA, along with experimental results of its static and viscous friction forces. These results are compared against the ones obtained with a conventional low-friction actuator. Finally, the paper explores the use of a PLPA and a low-friction actuator for servo control, using a conventional PID-type controller. It is experimentally shown that, contrary to what happens with conventional (even low friction) actuators, the use of an integral action does not lead to a limit cycle. Moreover, zero steady-state control error is obtained in a closed loop step response, showing that the approach proposed in this study potentially leads to a low-cost and simple motion control solution.


Servopneumatic systems Pneumatic actuators Motion control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of Project NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000022 - SciTech - Science and Technology for Competitive and Sustainable Industries, cofinanced by Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (NORTE2020), through Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER).


  1. 1.
    Merkelbach S, Murrenhoff H, Brecher C, Fey M, Eßer B (2016) Pneumatic or electromechanical drives—a comparison regarding their exergy efficiency. In: 10th international fluid power conference, Dresden, Germany, pp 103–115Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gauchel W, Haag S (2016) Servopneumatic clamping system for the assembly of battery cells in the area of Electromobility In: 10th international fluid power conference Dresden, Germany, pp 137–148Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rakova E, Hepke J, Weber J (2016) EXonomy analysis for the inter-domain comparison of electromechanical and pneumatic drives. In: 10th international fluid power conference Dresden, Germany, pp 117-1354Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bone G, Xue M, Flett J (2015) Position control of hybrid pneumatic–electric actuators using discrete-valued model-predictive control. Mechatronics 25:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashby G, Bone G (2016) Improved hybrid pneumatic-electric actuator for robot arms. In: 2016 I.E. International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 12–15, 2016 2016, pp 100–106Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    González-Vargas J, Ibáñez J, Contreras-Vidal JL, van der Kooij H, Pons JLE (2017) Wearable robotics: challenges and trends; proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on wearable robotics, WeRob2016, October 18–21, 2016, Segovia, Spain. Springer International Publishing.,
  7. 7.
    Shiva A, Stilli A, Noh Y, Faragasso A, Falco I, Gerboni G, Cianchetti M, Menciassi A, Althoefer K, Wurdemann A (2016) Tendon-based stiffening for a pneumatically actuated soft manipulator. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 1(1):632–637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salim S, Rahmat MF, Faudzi A, Ismail Z (2014) Position control of pneumatic actuator using an enhancement of NPID controller based on the characteristic of rate variation nonlinear gain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75(1):181–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2012) A high accuracy trajectory following controller for pneumatic devices. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 61(1):253–267. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2012) A macro-micro motion servopneumatic device. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I 226(6):775–786Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zu Y, Barth E (2010) Accurate sub-millimeter servo-pneumatic tracking using model reference adaptive control (MRAC). Int J Fluid Power 11(2)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stojanovic V, Nedic N (2016) Identification of time-varying OE models in presence of non-Gaussian noise: application to pneumatic servo drives. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 26(18):3974–3995. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stojanovic V, Filipovic V (2014) Adaptive input design for identification of output error model with constrained output. Circuits Syst Signal Process 33(1):97–113. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stojanovic V, Nedic N (2015) Joint state and parameter robust estimation of stochastic nonlinear systems. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 26(14):3974–3995. MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stojanovic V, Nedic N, Prsic D, Dubonjic L (2016) Optimal experiment design for identification of ARX models with constrained output in non-Gaussian noise. Appl Math Model 40(13–14):6676–6689. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falcão Carneiro J, Gomes de Almeida F (2014) Accurate motion control of a servopneumatic system using integral sliding mode control. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77(9):1533–1548. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krivts I (2004) New pneumatic cylinders for improving servo actuator positioning accuracy. J Mech Des 126(4):744–747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yung-Tien L, Tien-Tsai K, Kuo-Ming C, Sheng-Yuan C (2013) Observer-based adaptive sliding mode control for pneumatic servo system. Precis Eng 37(3):522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taheri B, Case D, Richer E (2012) Design of robust nonlinear force and stiffness controller for pneumatic actuators. In: 51st IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), Maui, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kagawa T, Tokashiki L, Fujita T (2000) Accurate positioning of a pneumatic servosystem with air bearings. In: Proc. of the bath workshop on power transmis. and motion control, Bath, UK, pp 257–268Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldin R (1984) Pneumatischer oder hydraulischer Linearantrieb. Germany Patent DE 3302444 A1Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Falcão Carneiro J, Gomes de Almeida F (2018) Experimental characteristics of a linear peristaltic actuator. In: accepted for publication in the 11th Fluid Power Conference Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Falcão Carneiro J, Gomes Almeida F, 6541-6553 IAV (2016) On the influence of velocity and acceleration estimators on a servopneumatic system behaviour. IEEE Access 4:6541–6553.
  24. 24.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2006) Reduced order thermodynamic models for servopneumatic actuator chambers. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I 220(4):301–314Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2011) Pneumatic servo valve models based on artificial neural networks. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I 225(3):393–411. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2012) A neural network based nonlinear model of a Servopneumatic system. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 134(2):024502 (024508 pages)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varga Z, Honkola P-K (2012) Mathematical model of pneumatic proportional valve. J Appl Sci Thermodyn Fluid Mech 1(1)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carneiro JF, Almeida FG (2013) Using two servovalves to improve pneumatic force control in industrial cylinders. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(1–4):283–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogata K (2001) Modern control engineering, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Falcão Carneiro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fernando Gomes de Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.INEGI, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations