Position and torque tracking: Series elastic actuation versus model-based-controlled hydraulic actuation

Robotics used for diagnostic measurements on, e.g. stroke survivors, require actuators that are both stiff and compliant. Stiffness is required for identification purposes, and compliance to compensate for the robots dynamics, so that the subject can move freely while using the robot. A hydraulic actuator can act as a position (stiff) or a torque (compliant) actuator. The drawback of a hydraulic actuator is that it behaves nonlinear. This article examines two methods for controlling a nonlinear hydraulic actuator. The first method that is often applied uses an elastic element (i.e. spring) connected in series with the hydraulic actuator so that the torque can be measured as the deflection of the spring. This torque measurement is used for proportional integral control. The second method of control uses the inverse of the model of the actuator as a linearizing controller. Both methods are compared using simulation results. The controller designed for the series elastic hydraulic actuator is faster to implement, but only shows good performance for the working range for which the controller is designed due to the systems nonlinear behavior. The elastic element is a limiting factor when designing a position controller due to its low torsional stiffness. The model-based controller linearizes the nonlinear system and shows good performance when used for torque and position control. Implementing the model-based controller does require building and validating of the detailed model.