Experimental Modeling and Control of Pneumatic Cylinders for Robotic

Applications

Winnie Ngo
Mechanical Engineering
City College of New York
160 Convent Ave
New York, NY 10031 USA

Milwaukee School of Engineering

1025 N. Broadway Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53202 USA

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Luis A. Rodriguez

Abstract

Recently, there has been growth in robotic technology designed to work more closely with humans, such as robotic
support for rehabilitation and collaborative robots for production workers. According to the CDC, over 795,000
Americans experience a stroke each year resulting in impaired limb functionality, this increases the demand for robotic
technology that can assist in their recovery. TechNavio, a technology and advisory company, projects a high annual
growth rate in the market, which suggests an increase demand for collaborative robots in the workforce. High demand
for these robots makes safety a priority for people working with them. The current literature suggests that use of
compliant robots can limit damage and injury imposed on objects and humans, respectively. Robots should be capable
of absorbing unexpected forces and controlling the amount of force applied. The high power to weight ratio and the
natural compliance of pneumatics are appealing properties for the design of robots that closely interact with humans.
Efforts have been made to control the level of compliance or stiffness in a robotic design to work with patients at
different stages of rehabilitation. However, due to the compressibility of air, precise control of pneumatics has been a
major challenge. This research focuses on the characterization and control of pneumatic cylinders for robotic
applications. To better understand the dynamics of pneumatic cylinders, a custom testbed was developed to acquire
experimental data that will be used to create more realistic mathematical models of the pneumatic system.
Experimental data for the pressurization a fixed-volume was collected and agreed with observations made of the
physical system. Additionally, force feedback control was implemented using an Arduino microcontroller to generate
desired cylinder forces.

Keywords: Pneumatic cylinder, experimental modeling, force control

1. Introduction

According to the American Heart Association, on average, every 40 seconds an American has a stroke and strokes are
the leading cause of long-term disability.1 Advancements in robotics in the medical field have led to more human-
robot interaction to combat this issue. The increasing number of stroke survivors has also raised the demand of robots
for rehabilitation. Robotic devices in contrast to traditional therapist are more efficient in carrying out therapy routines
and storing information about patients’ performances and diagnosis2. In addition, virtual simulation and games
integrated into these robotic devices make the rehabilitation process more enjoyable for patients, and emerge patients
in their therapy sessions2. As more robots are designed to meet this demand, pneumatics can be incorporated to take
advantage of their low initial cost, inherent compliance, simple and clean operation, and high power to weight ratio 3.
Several pneumatic robotic systems, such as the iPam (University of Leeds), RUBERT (Arizona State University),
PNEU-WREX (University of California), and the SRE (University of Salford), were developed to train patients with
upper limb disabilities4. These devices have a gravity compensation mode that can support the weight of the patient's
arm to allow the patient to move more freely4. All these devices also include virtual simulations to engage the patients
in activities to train the connection between the brain and the upper limb 4. The advantages found in most of these
robotic arms are the comfort, safety, simplicity, and the lightweight quality of the device4. These applications have
demonstrated the qualities of pneumatics to be a sensible option for more safe lightweight and affordable rehabilitation
devices.

Figure 1. Patient using the iPam4 Figure 2. Patient using the PNEU-WREX4

In addition to rehabilitation devices, many companies and corporations have been adapting collaborative robots (co-
bots) into the work environment to boost the work efficiency of employees. From 2016 to 2021, the co-bot market is
estimated to growth from $175.5 million to $3811.48 million; the compound annual growth rate is predicted to be
85.08% in that period.5 This massive growth in the co-bot market indicate a high demand for co-bots, raising the need
to further consider the safety of human-robot interaction.
Pneumatics can be used to address this challenge, because it can make a co-bot system safer due to its natural
compliance, but still have the high-power capabilities to perform various task. Additionally, force control and
compliance are necessary to prevent a co-bot from damaging its surroundings and to allow absorption of unexpected
forces. These two features have been heavily researched to expand the boundaries of robot or machine capabilities to
do specific tasks and to be safer to its surroundings. Many tasks require the human touch that can be both rigid and
compliant; most machines that are position based do not have the human touch capabilities and can damage their
surroundings. One approach to improve compliance using other forms of actuation include adding an elastic element
to the system to provide the compliant factor.6 Other approaches compare the current command with the actual position
and compensate for these unexpected external forces.7 With the natural compliance of pneumatics, it could minimalize
the effort to introduce compliance into a robotic system. It has been shown that pneumatics is beneficial in applications
that require variable stiffness, because of the ability of air to compress and adjust the internal pressure; however, it is
hard to control.
To address the control challenges associated with pneumatics, numerous methods have been proposed in the literature.
Many use controllers while others some use different hardware configurations to better control pneumatics8. Examples
of controllers that have been used to control pneumatics include linear and feedback linearization controllers, adaptive
position and force controllers, backstepping controllers, twisting algorithm and sliding mode controllers. 9 These
multiple efforts to advance pneumatic technology demonstrate a great inclination to further adapt pneumatics into real
applications. Additional sensors and instrumentation are required that would require more special signaling, circuitry,
and cost that complicates the system.7 More studies still need to be done to more accurately identify and adjust to the
nonlinearities found in pneumatic systems.
Towards this goal, this research focuses on the experimental characterization and control of pneumatic cylinders for
robotic applications. Experimental results will be used to improve and validate mathematical models of the system.
These experiments include finding the mass flow rate in a fixed-volume chamber, calculating the force by measuring
the pressure differences in the two chambers of the cylinder and implementing a force-feedback controller to
manipulate the force generate by the cylinder.

1.2 Pneumatic Test Stand

A custom testbed was designed as a senior project advised by Dr. Daniel Williams. The purpose was to create a testbed
as an educational tool for MSOE students to understand and learn more about pneumatics. The pneumatic components
of the test stand consisted of an air compressor, an accumulator, a filter regulator (SMC AW20 and AFM20), two
SMC electronic-pressure regulators (SMC ITV1050), two pressure switches (SMC ISE40A), two SMC flow switches
(SMC PFMB7201), and a pneumatic cylinder. A diagram of the pneumatic circuit is shown in Figure 3. The test stand
also included an Arduino to collect sensor data and to send control signals.

Figure 3. Experimental set up for the pneumatic system.

2. Methodology

2.1 Pneumatic Model

In the following, a mathematical model of the pneumatic cylinder is presented. Variables that include 𝑎 or 𝑏 in the
subscript indicate whether the variable is representing chamber A or B as displayed in Figure 4. The pressure, area,
and volume of chamber A are represented as 𝑃𝑎 or 𝑃𝑏 , 𝐴𝑎 or 𝐴𝑏 , and 𝑉𝑎 or 𝑉𝑏 , respectively. The mass flow rate is
denoted as 𝑚̇𝑎 or 𝑚̇𝑏 , depending on the chamber. The bore diameter, rod diameter, stroke length, position of the
piston, and thickness of the piston are represented as 𝐵, 𝑑, 𝑆, 𝑥, and 𝑡𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 , respectively.

Figure 4. Model of a Pneumatic Cylinder.

The volume of Chamber A and B is given by equation (1) and (2), respectively.
 𝜋 2 𝑡𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛
𝑉𝑎 = (𝐵 − 𝑑 2 ) (𝑆 − 𝑥 − )
4 2
(1)

𝜋 2 𝑡𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛
𝑉𝑏 = 𝐵 (𝑥 − )
4 2 (2)

From an energy balance, equation (3) and (4) were derived by Bobrow and McDonell8. The known variables include
the temperature of the supplied air as 𝑇𝑠 = 300 𝐾, and the universal gas constant, 𝑅 = 287 𝑚2 /𝑠 2 𝐾. The ratio of
specific heat at a constant pressure and constant volume is given as 𝑘 = (𝑐𝑝 /𝑐𝑣 ) = 1.4.

𝑐𝑝 𝑚̇𝑎 𝑃𝑎 𝑉𝑎̇ 𝑐𝑝 (3)

𝑃𝑎̇ = 𝑅 ( ) 𝑇𝑠 − ( )
𝑐𝑣 𝑉𝑎 𝑉𝑎 𝑐𝑣

𝑐𝑝 𝑚̇𝑏 𝑃𝑏 𝑉𝑏̇ 𝑐𝑝
𝑃𝑏̇ = 𝑅 ( ) 𝑇𝑠 − ( ) (4)
𝑐𝑣 𝑉𝑏 𝑉𝑏 𝑐𝑣

The force of the stroke can be found from equation (5) where 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 is the atmospheric pressure, 𝐴𝑠 is the cross-sectional
area of the stroke, 𝐴𝑎 and 𝐴𝑏 are the area of the piston with respect to chamber A and chamber B.

𝐹𝑐 = 𝑃𝑏 𝐴𝑏 − 𝑃𝑎 𝐴𝑎 − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝐴𝑠 (5)

2.2 Pneumatic Actuator Characterization

Fixed Volume Experiment

The first experiment involved measuring the pressure with a fixed volume to help determine the mass flow rate of the
system. The amount of pressure entering the chambers of the pneumatic cylinder was controlled by the electronic-
pressure regulators. By keeping the volume constant, equation (3) and (4) becomes equation (6) and (7). These two
equations helped determine the mass flow rate of the system by observing that the mass flow is directionally
proportional to the rate of change of the chamber pressure.

𝑐𝑝 𝑇𝑠 (6)
𝑃𝑎̇ = 𝑅 ( ) 𝑚̇𝑎
𝑐𝑣 𝑉𝑎

𝑐𝑝 𝑇𝑠
𝑃𝑏̇ = 𝑅 ( ) 𝑚̇𝑏 (7)
𝑐𝑣 𝑉𝑏

Force Feedback Control Experiment

A second experiment was performed to determine the force output based on the pressure difference of each chamber.
The pressure regulators were used to input and measure the pressure of each chamber and a feedback control algorithm
was implemented to maintain the desired force. The force feedback control loop utilized equation (5) to track the force
generated by the pneumatic cylinder and followed the procedure shown in Figure 5. To track the force generated from
the pneumatic cylinder and to help implement force control equation (8) was used to calculate the error, 𝑒, by taking
the difference between the desired force and the force generated, denoted as 𝐹𝐷 and 𝐹𝐶 , respectively. The controller
will use the error and a tuning constant, 𝐾𝑝 , to make the necessary adjustment. The adjustment sent to the plant to
achieve the desired force is proportional to the product of 𝐾𝑝 and the current error.
 𝑒 = 𝐹𝐷 − 𝐹𝐶 (8)

Figure 5. Force Feedback Control Loop.

3. Results and Discussion

Fixed Volume Results

For the fixed volume experiment three different pressure values were tested to pressurize chamber B with the cylinder
fully extended (𝑉𝐵 at max volume). The pressure values used included 5, 10, 15, and 20 psi and were sent to the
pressure regulator in a square wave pattern as shown in Figure 6. Sending a square wave helped identify the start and
end of the pressure input.

Figure 6. Square wave input of a specified pressure value, P.

To find the rate of pressure change, the derivative of the pressure data was taken through the numerical central
differentiation method. After taking the derivative, the rate of pressure change was applied to equation (7). Figure 7
shows the pressure value collected from the sensor and the mass flow rate calculated taken from the data values. In
each experiment with different pressure value, similar trends were found in all experiments. In each experiment, the
mass flow rate peaked when the regulator began to pressurize as shown in Figure 7 between 1-2 and 11-12 seconds.
When the chamber depressurized the mass flows back out of the chamber as shown between 6-7 and 16-17 seconds
in Figure 7. After the peak, the mass flow rate would settle to roughly 0 kg/s when the chamber is filled.
 Pressure of Chamber and Mass Flow
10 0.005
8 Pressure of Chamber B 0.004
Mass Flow from Pressure
6 0.003

Mass Flow (kg/s)

Pressure (psi)

4 0.002
2 0.001
0 0
-2 -0.001
-4 -0.002
-6 -0.003
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)
Figure 7. Graph illustrates the measured pressure value and mass flow rate when rod is fully extended and a pressure
of 5 psi is sent to the cylinder.

Force Feedback Control Results

A simple force feedback control was implemented to generate the desired force. As the pneumatic system was cycling
through the control loop, data of the measured pressure values in each chamber was collected using an oscilloscope.
Multiple desired forces, that included 5, 10, and 15 psi, were tested through this control loop and all had similar trends.
Figure 8 is the pressure data collected under a control loop that aimed to generate 10 lb. of force with a tuning constant
of 𝐾𝑝 = 0.9. Since the time of piston travel was approximately one second, it was difficult to implement multiple
force control cycles between the start and end of travel.

Pressure of Chambers
14
Pressure A
12 Pressure B

10
Pressure (psi)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (seconds)

Figure 8. Graph displays the measured pressure values of each chambers during force feedback loop with tuning
constant of 𝐾𝑝 = 0.9 and desired force F = 10 lb.

These pressure values were then used to find the force by using equation (5) to generate the graph shown in Figure 9.
When observing the Figure 9, the control loop did maintain a force close to the desired force between 1-1.5 seconds,
5-5.5 seconds, 9-9.5 seconds. However, once the piston had reached the end of the travel the force value doubled
because there was no longer a back pressure in chamber A. When the piston could no longer travel any further,
chamber B and A was depressurized and pressurized, respectively, to return the rod to the retracted state.

Force Generated
25
20
15
10
Force (lb)

5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (seconds)
Figure 9. Graph displays the calculated force values based on pressure values in Figure 8.

4. Conclusion and Future Work

Experimental data for the pressurization a fixed-volume was collected and agreed with observations made of the
physical system. This data will be used in the future to validate simulated results from a mathematical model. One of
the problems that was observed in experiments was the large amount of sensor noise that skewed the measured values;
further work will include the development of a filter to limit the sensor noise. Additionally, through multiple attempts
to control the pneumatic cylinder with an Arduino microcontroller, a consistent force was generated for each cycle.
Due to the response time of the pressure regulator and the limited travel of the piston, it was difficult to have the
Arduino keep up with the rapid motion. A pneumatic cylinder with a longer stroke length would be beneficial to test
force control over a longer period of travel in future experiments. Further experiments are needed to completely
characterize the dynamics of the pneumatic cylinder and will be addressed in future studies.

5. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the National Science Foundation for the grant provided to this research and SMC for
the generous donation of components for the pneumatic test stand. A special thanks to Dr. Luis A. Rodriguez
(Advisor), Dr. Subha Kumpaty PE (Principal Investigator), Betty Albrecht, and all MSOE staff and REU participants
for their support.
The material is based upon work supported by The National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC–1460183.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of The National Science Foundation.
The material is based upon work using pneumatic components donated by SMC. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of SMC.

6. References

[1] E. J. Benjamin and On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics
Subcommittee et al., “Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart
Association,” Circulation, 01-Jan-2017. [Online]. Available:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/01/25/CIR.0000000000000485. [Accessed: 06-Jul-2017].
[2] K. D. O. Andrade, J. Martins, G. A. P. Caurin, R. C. Joaquim, and G. Fernandes, “Relative performance analysis
for robot rehabilitation procedure with two simultaneous users,” 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International
Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), 2012.
[3] B. Trinkel, “CHAPTER 5: Pneumatic and hydraulic systems,” Hydraulics & Pneumatics, 15-Oct-2006. [Online].
Available: http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/other-technologies/chapter-5-pneumatic-and-hydraulic-systems.
[Accessed: 06-Jul-2017].
[4] R. Morales et al, “Pneumatic robotic systems for upper limb rehabilitation,” Medical & Biological Engineering
& Computing, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1145–1156, Aug. 2011.
[5] "Research and Markets; Global Cobots Market Growth at CAGR of 85.08%,2016-2021 with ABB, Bionic
Robotics, Blue Ocean Robotics and Omron Adept Technologies Dominating the $3.81 Billion Market - Research
and Markets,"Journal of Engineering, pp. 465, 2017. Available:
http://ezproxy.msoe.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1877879564?accountid=9445.
[6] W. Roozing, Z. Li, D. G. Caldwell, and N. G. Tsagarakis, “Design Optimisation and Control of Compliant
Actuation Arrangements in Articulated Robots for Improved Energy Efficiency,” IEEE Robotics and Automation
Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1110–1117, 2016.
[7] C. Trakarnchaiyo and A. M. S. Abeykoon, “Vibration suppression design for virtual compliance control in
bilateral teleoperation,” 2017 2nd International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering (ICCRE), 2017.
[8] J. E. Bobrow and B. W. McDonell, “Modeling, identification, and control of a pneumatically actuated, force
controllable robot,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 732–742, 1998.
[9] T. Driver and X. Shen, “Pressure Estimation-Based Robust Force Control of Pneumatic Actuators,” International
Journal of Fluid Power, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–45, 2013.