Author:
Sárosi József,György László
Abstract
Many researchers have investigated different properties and behaviour of pneumatic muscles actuators (PMAs). Most of them have dealt with the force-contraction (force-relative displacement) characteristics or control of PMAs. In this paper two different type PMAs are compared: Fluidic Muscle made by Festo Company and Shadow Air Muscle made by Shadow Robot Company. The most relevant difference between them can be noticed in their structure. The Fluidic Muscle is an embedded muscle which means the load carrying element is embedded in its membrane, while Shadow Air Muscle is a netted muscle, but in its non-loaded condition there is a gap between the membrane and the load carrying element. Among other things, force developed by pneumatic muscle actuators depends on applied pressure, contraction, geometry and the used materials. As it is described in this paper, they show significantly different force-contraction characteristics despite having similar dimensional properties. These characteristics are determined by experimental measurement.
Reference12 articles.
1. D. G. Caldwell, G. A. Medrano-Cerda, M. Goodwin, Control of Pneumatic Muscle Actuators, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 15 (1), (1995), pp. 40-48.
2. R. Ramasary, M. R. Juhari, M. R. Mamat, S. Yaacob, N. F. Mohd Nasir, M. Sugisaka, An Application of Finite Modelling to Pneumatic Artificial Muscle, American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2 (11), (2005), pp. 1504-1508.
3. D. H. Plettenburg, Pneumatic Actuators: a Comparison of Energy-to-Mass Ratio's, IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 Jun - 1 July, 2005, pp. 545-549.
4. D. Daerden, Conception and Realization of Pleated Artificial Muscles and Their Use as Compliant Actuation Elements, PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen Vakgroep Werktuigkunde, 1999
5. M. Tothova, J. Pitel, Operating Characteristics of Antagonistic Actuator with Pneumatic Artificial Muscles, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 616 (2014), pp. 101-109.