Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/RSJ International
1
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
San Diego, CA, USA, Oct 29 - Nov 2, 2007
Air Muscle Controller Design
in the Distributed Macro-Mini (DM2 ) Actuation Approach
I. Sardellitti1,2 , J. Park1 , D.Shin1 and O.Khatib1
1
Stanford University, Artificial Intelligence Lab., 94305 CA, USA.
2 Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, ARTS Lab., 56127 Pisa, Italy.
E-mails: irene@arts.sssup.it, {park73,djshin,ok}@ai.stanford.edu.
Abstract— Recently, on the base of Distributed Macro-Mini
Actuation approach (DM2 ), a new robotic manipulator with
hybrid actuation, air muscles-DC motor, has been developed.
Among existing actuators, the hybrid actuation employs air
muscles because they represent an advantageous tradeoff of
performance and safety, due to their power/weight ratio and
inherent compliance. The air muscles, however, are limited in
bandwidth and their behavior is highly nonlinear. In order
to overcome these limitations, the paper presents a torque
control strategy based on a pair of differentially connected
force-controlled air muscles. This controller was implemented
and evaluated on a single joint testbed, first by itself and then
as macro component into the Macro-Mini control strategy.
I. INTRODUCTION
Numerous mechanical design strategies have been pro-
posed to improve the safety and reliability of robotic devices
[1], [2], [3]. Based on a human friendly design philosophy,
Zinn et al. proposed the Distributed Macro-Mini actuation
approach (DM2 ) for robot manipulators [4]. This approach
consists of partitioning the actuation into separate macro and
mini actuators that provide for low and high frequency torque
generation, respectively. The DM2 approach was very suc-
cessful in the development of human friendly manipulators,
but it presented some disadvantages due to the use of a large,
heavy DC motor and coupling spring as the macro actuator.
To improve upon this, Shin and Khatib proposed the use of
smaller and lighter air muscle actuators to replace the macro
DC motor and spring in the DM2 approach [5]. The focus of
the work presented in this paper is on the design of a torque
controller for the air muscle actuators and its integration into
the Macro-Mini control strategy.
Air muscle actuation, as a technology, has been known for
some time but only recently gained importance in robotics.
The air muscles originally presented by McKibben in the
late 1950s for prosthetic applications, are now being seen
as an effective solution to safety problems in robotic ma-
nipulators [6]. Air muscle actuators consist of an inflatable,
rubber, inner membrane surrounded by a braided shell. When
pressurized, they shorten and generate a contraction force
along the axial direction. This force depends, primarily, upon
the applied pressure and the length of the muscle [7], [8].
Compared to other actuation systems, high power/weight
and power/volume ratios allow air muscles to be a good
solution for lightweight actuation design [9]. Because of low
inertia and inherent compliance from the compressible gas,
1-4244-0912-8/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE. 1822
WeB2.
air muscle output impedance is low over a wide frequency
range, reducing uncontrolled impact forces to potentially
safe levels. This natural compliance, however, limits the
actuation performance in terms of bandwidth. Moreover,
energy losses caused by the inner rubber core and friction
between the outer threads produce a noticeable and problem-
atic force/displacement hysteresis phenomenon [10].
An air muscle actuator on its own, can only produce
pulling forces. For use in robotics, therefore, further consid-
eration is necessary in order to generate bidirectional torques
at a joint. Such torques can be provided by a biologically
inspired antagonistic configuration, in which two air muscles
would produce torque as a difference of applied pulling
forces. Furthermore, the redundancy in actuation allows to
adjust the stiffness of the joint in an open loop manner by air
muscle co-contraction [11]. The advantage of co-contraction
instead of stiffness control (through negative position feed-
back) is noteworthy as it overcomes the closed loop gain
limitations related to transmission delay and bandwidth [12].
A number of different approaches have been proposed in
the literature in order to solve the air muscle limitations.
Some strategies focus on air flow effects and air muscle
physical structure, showing that reducing the dead volume
in the muscle and carefully monitoring the air flow rate
increases actuation bandwidth [13]. Other approaches rely
more upon improved control strategies. There has been
significant research showing improved performance through
the use of adaptive control, as compared with a basic PID
approach, which is quite sensitive to the air muscle hysteresis
[14], [15].
This paper presents a torque control strategy based on
a pair of differentially connected air muscles with adaptive
force-control. The controller design is based on air muscle
static modelling and open loop analysis, with online ad-
justment for dynamic model variations. The force feedback,
closing the control loop around the air muscle, thereby
compensates for the air muscle modelling uncertainties while
also increasing the actuation bandwidth. The air muscle
actuation performance was tested on a single joint prototype.
It showed increased bandwidth in torque generation and
robustness with respect to disturbances. The effectiveness
of the torque control was also tested when implemented as
macro control into the Macro-Mini control strategy.
The paper is structured as follows. Initially the paper
provides a technical description of the single joint proto-
type testbed and its functionality. Section III describes the
individual air muscle force controllers, and their combination
into a single joint torque controller. Section IV analyzes the
air muscle torque control in the Macro-Mini control strategy.
This is followed by an experimental section demonstrating
the experimental results. The paper concludes with a sum-
mary of the work and discussion on further research.
II. P ROTOTYPE LINK
Fig. 1. One joint prototype testbed. Two air muscles are connected through
a pulley to the joint. Each muscle’s force contributes to generate a torque at
the joint. A DC motor is directly coupled to the joint on the base of DM2
approach.
The one joint prototype testbed is shown in Fig.1. It con-
sists of two air muscles (Shadow Robot Company Ltd. [16]),
with initial length 210mm, and equipped with force sensors
(Omega, LC211) placed between the muscles and the joint.
Pressure is provided by servo regulators (Bellofram, T3000)
consisting of two solenoid valves endowed with internal
pressure sensors. A low inductance servo DC motor (Maxon,
37000) is directly collocated on the joint and provided with
an incremental encoder.
The testbed schematic is shown in Fig. 2. The pressure
regulators, on the basis of a command signal, control the
pressure in the air muscles, which are placed in an antag-
onistic configuration. When the pressure increases the air
muscles expand in diameter and shorten in length. The air
muscles, therefore, generate a contraction force along the
axial direction, which is measured by the load cells. The
difference of force between the two muscles generates a
positive or negative torque on the joint. Moreover a DC
motor, collocated on the joint, is coupled in parallel with the
air muscle actuation in accordance with the DM2 approach
in order to provide high-frequency torque generation.
III. A IR M USCLE T ORQUE C ONTROL
The implemented air muscle torque controller is a differen-
tial combination of adaptive force feedback controllers. The
torque control scheme is shown in Fig.3. Given two forces,
one from each muscle, the torque T j applied to the joint is
T j = R(F1 − F2 ) = R∆F
Fig. 2. Testbed schematic. P1 and P2 are the pressures in the muscles
controlled by the servo regulators, which take command signals, U1 and U2 .
The terms, F1 and F2 , denote air muscle forces; Ps is the pressure supply;
T j is the joint torque; θ is the joint angle.
where F1 and F2 are the air muscle forces and R is the radius
of the pulley at the joint. When the desired torque, Td , is to
be produced at the joint, the necessary force difference ∆Fd ,
is given by:
∆Fd = Td /R. (2)
Due to the actuation redundancy, for any given desired
torque, Td , there are an infinite set of antagonistic muscle
forces that can be produced. This means an additional design
specification is needed to determine the commanded force
on each muscle. In the torque controller presented here, this
force command is determined such that one muscle force
increases by the same magnitude that the other muscle force
decreases.
F1d = F0 + (∆Fd /2)
(3)
F2d = F0 − (∆Fd /2)
This particular choice of distributing the muscle forces is
suitable for our application. It is noted, however, that other
choices could be made based on minimizing the norm of the
command force or some other performance objective.
A. Muscle Force control
In order to design a force controller, several static models
of the air muscle, based on solving the force generated
from the length and pressure, were investigated. Air muscle
models are mostly based on energy conservation approach.
Thus, the most critical factors in the determination of air
muscle force are related to the complexity in defining all the
geometric and dynamic parameters, and their slow variations
over several duty cycles [17].
Initially a standard PI control was implemented and tuned
by trial and error. The results obtained with this approach
showed that the controller was not able to follow the dynamic
(1) variations of the air muscle characteristics. Consequently,
1823

(a) Air muscle torque control
(b) Air muscle force control
Fig. 3. Air muscles control schematic. (a) The torque controller is
illustrated here, where the block, Force Control, represents an individual
air muscle force controller. The terms, I j and R, denote the inertia of the
link and the radius of the pulley, respectively. (b) The air muscle force
control is based on feedback from the load cell measurement. Moreover,
the controller, C, is adjusted by the updated air muscle model, Ĝm , through
measurements of the muscle length L.
in order to overcome these uncertainties and improve per-
formance, an adaptive force feedback control strategy was
adopted.
First, a simple static model for this application was con-
sidered [10]: µ ¶
Pb2 3L2
F= − 1 (4)
4π n2 b2
where F is the force generated by the muscle, P is the
internal muscle pressure, L is the length, b is the thread
length and n is the number of turns for a single thread.
By comparing the force measurements with the model
results it was clear that the model needed to be modified. The
model parameters in (4) were then estimated by experiment.
Muscle force was measured by the load cell when the joint
position was placed in several configurations. Consequently,
the terms b and n were found by fitting with least squared
error method, based on the force, pressure, and length data
collected from each air muscle with the model.
Having defined an acceptable static model, fitted with
measured parameters, the next step was to identify the
dynamic effects on the model due to pressure variations.
Experiments were therefore carried out, using fixed muscle
length and a chirp signal as command to the valve. Force
and pressure data were recorded at 500 Hz, and a Discrete
Fourier Transform analysis was conducted. Two Empirical
Transfer Function Estimates (ETFE) were thus created:
P(s)
• The pressure regulator transfer function Gv (s) = U(s)
where P(s) is the output pressure of the regulator and
U(s) is the command signal.
1824
• The air muscle transfer function Gm (s) = F(s)
P(s) where
F(s) is the force recorded by the load cell for a given
regulator pressure.
According to the ETFE results, Gv (s) could be considered
unit magnitude for the range of frequencies needed in this
application. The second transfer function, Gm (s), showed a
clear first order behavior, which was modeled as follows:
1
Gm (s) = km (5)
1 + Ti s
where Ti is the time constant and km is the DC gain obtained
on the basis of (4), i.e.
µ 2 ¶
b2 3L
km = −1 (6)
4π n2 b2
The total transfer function, therefore, G(s) = Gm (s) · Gv (s)
was obtained from the static and dynamic analysis as:
· 2 µ 2 ¶¸
b 3L 1
G(s) = 2 2
− 1 (7)
4π n b 1 + Ti s
Given the identified transfer function in (7), force control
was implemented using force measurement from the load
cell. The controller C(s) was designed as follows:
1 + Hs
C(s) = kc (8)
s
where H is a constant and kc is the DC gain.
This controller (C(s)) was able to regulate the force
exerted by the air muscle but with varying performance,
dependant on the air muscle length. Further experiments were
therefore conducted in order to identify the effects of the
length variations on the air muscle plant. The ETFE results
showed different DC gain for the Gm (s) transfer function
for different air muscle lengths. Thus, an experimental rela-
tionship between length variation and the Gm (s) DC gain
was found. Using this relationship an online estimate of
the air muscle plant Ĝm (s) was generated during run time,
to adjust the controller gain kc in (8). This allows for a
consistent rise time in every air muscle configuration. The
entire process was conducted for each muscle individually,
due to minor variations in open loop characteristics between
the two muscles.
IV. M ACRO -M INI C ONTROL S TRATEGY
The torque controlled air muscle pair was implemented
as a macro actuator in the Macro-Mini control strategy
associated with the DM2 approach discussed earlier. The
strategy in DM2 consists of partitioning commanded torques
between the macro – air muscles – and mini – DC motor
– actuators, on the basis of frequency content. Then, the
torque applied on the joint will be the linear combination of
the single macro and mini torque contributions.
In this control scheme, the DC motor supports the low
density, high frequency part of the torque command, while
the air muscle actuation provides high density, low fre-
quency torque. The low frequency range of the air muscle
torque, however, has to be wide enough such that the DC
motor is not saturated. The DC motor, dimensioned for 4.5
high frequency and low torque generation, should not be 4
expected to compensate for the phase and magnitude error 3.5
of the low frequency part of the torque command. Thus, 3
commanded torques that saturate the DC motor will produce 2.5
Desired ∆F
Actual ∆F (1)
both magnitude errors and phase lag in the complete Macro-

∆F [N]
Actual ∆F (2)
2
Mini control. In this case, the combined torque applied at
1.5
the joint will be unduly limited to the bandwidth constraints
1
of the low frequency (macro) actuator.
0.5
The Macro-Mini control scheme is shown in Fig.4. Due
to air muscles’ low pass behavior it was possible to naturally 0

partition the torque generation between macro and mini −0.5

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

actuation. The torque tracking error from the macro control Time [sec]
(given by the difference between desired torque, Td , and
torque generated by the air muscles, TM ) serves as the input (a) muscle 1
signal to the mini control. On the mini side, an open loop
current controller is used for the DC motor, in order to 4.5

achieve the necessary high frequency bandwidth. The final 4

torque applied to the joint, (T j ), is the sum of the macro 3.5

(TM ) and mini (Tm ) torque contributions. 3 Desired ∆F

Actual ∆F (1)
2.5
Actual ∆F (2)

∆F [N]
2

1.5

0.5

−0.5
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Fig. 4. Macro-Mini Control Scheme. The desired torque, Td , is the Time [sec]
command input to the macro control (i.e. air muscle torque control). The
mini actuator (DC motor) compensates for the torque difference between
the desired and measured torques, TM , of the macro control. The resulting (b) muscle 2
torque on the joint, T j , is the sum of the macro actuator torque, TM , and
mini actuator torque, Tm . Fig. 5. Step responses for each of the two muscles (muscle 1 above, muscle
2 below) under force control. Each plot shows results from two trials.

V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
The air muscle torque controller was implemented on
the one joint prototype testbed described in Section II. The
controller was verified by experiment for two cases: first, as
a stand-alone torque controller, second, as a macro control
in the Macro-Mini control scheme.
As a stand-alone torque controller, step response experi-
ments were conducted in order to test the force control imple-
mented on each air muscle independently and to evaluate the
torque controller by itself. Further experiments were carried
out in order to analyze the stiffness control and the natural
stiffness of the air muscle actuation.
Finally, the effectiveness of the torque control as macro
control in the Macro-Mini control scheme was tested through
experiments of torque and position control step response.
A. Air muscle torque control
Experiments were carried out in order to test the force
control performance. During these experiments, the joint link
was fixed in a given position for evaluating the force control
implemented on each air muscle independently. In Fig. 5,
the step responses to force commands are shown for each air
muscle. Note that for each muscle, two trial step responses
are shown. They show consistent results. It is clear, however,
that the responses from the two muscles are not identical.
This is due to the difference in open loop characteristics
between the two muscles, and hence also different controller
gains.
Using this force controller, the torque controller perfor-
mance was evaluated with step response experiments (Fig.
6 (a)). Given a step command, the torque applied was
calculated on the basis of (1), through load cells measure-
ments. The results show that the torque control bandwidth
is significantly increased, from the open loop bandwidth of
0.5 Hz to 7 Hz using the feedback control.
Due to the redundancy in air muscle actuation, the torque
step experiments were conducted for a variety of system
preloads, by applying different initial pressures in the air
muscles. In Fig. 6 (b), the torque step responses of the 8
trials are plotted, for preload initial pressure ranging from
85kPa to 235kPa. The results obtained illustrate significant
robustness of the closed loop controller’s performance with
respect to variations of the nominal working point in air
muscle pressure.
Finally, stiffness control experiments were also conducted

1825
 0.22 4

Controlled
0.2
3.5 Stiffness

Joint Stiffness [Nm/rad]

0.18
Desired Torque 3
Torque [Nm]

Actual Torque (1)

0.16 Actual Torque (2)
2.5
0.14

2
0.12

0.1 1.5 Natural

Stiffness
0.08 1 −1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
ω [rad/s]
Time [sec]

Fig. 7. Experimentally Estimated Bode Plot for Stiffness Response.

(a) Frequency analysis was conducted for the air muscle torque controller when
implementing a desired joint stiffness, k j , of 3.6 Nm/rad. The stiffness
0.12
control was able to achieve the desired stiffness until the roll-off frequency
with an accuracy of ±0.1 Nm/rad. Above the roll-off frequency, the joint
0.1
stiffness is mainly given by the combination of the natural stiffnesses of the
muscles.
0.08
Torque [Nm]

0.06
dominated by the natural response of the system.
0.04

B. Air muscle torque control in the Macro-Mini control

0.02
0
−0.02
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time [sec]
(b)
Fig. 6. Torque step responses. The torque was calculated on the basis of (1),
through load cell measurements. (a) Two trials of torque step response with
initial preload 167kPa. (b) 8 trials of step responses, with preload varying
from 85kPa to 235kPa.
on the air muscle pair. The stiffness control was implemented
as an outer loop wrapped around the inner torque controller.
The stiffness control was basically a proportional gain k j (the
desired joint stiffness) acting on an error in position:
Td = k j (θd − θ j )
where Td is the desired torque, while θd and θ j are the
desired and current joint positions respectively. Given Td ,
the force controller input was obtained using (3). In these
experiments a chirp signal was sent as input to θd , while
the joint position and forces exerted by the air muscles were
recorded. An ETFE of the joint stiffness was obtained from
this data, using the same methods as in Section III (Fig.7).
As shown in Fig.7 the joint stiffness control performance
is dependent on frequency. The stiffness control tracks the
desired stiffness, k p , with an accuracy of ±0.1 Nm/rad until
the roll off frequency. Above this range the stiffness is
mainly related to the natural stiffness of the system, which
varies with the initial preload on the air muscles. The joint
response to high frequency input disturbances is, essentially,
strategy
The air muscle torque control performance in the Macro-
Mini torque control strategy was tested on the single joint
0.45 0.5
prototype. Experiments were conducted using step input
torque commands, and an external force sensor in order
to measure the actual joint torque being exerted. The ex-
perimental results, depicted in Fig. 8, demonstrate that the
air muscle torque controller described in this paper can be
effectively integrated into the Macro-Mini control scheme.
Note that the noise visible in the data is due to the external
force sensor, and was not filtered out so that the high
frequency response of the controller could still be seen.
Thanks to the force feedback control on each muscle, the
bandwidth of the macro torque controller is wide enough
to avoid the mini saturation. As expected under the DM2
scheme, the torque step response shows that the hybrid
air muscle-DC motor actuation, using Macro-Mini control
(9) strategy, responds 5 times faster than the only air muscle
torque control.
In addition, further experiments were undertaken to inves-
tigate bandwidth under joint position control (as opposed to
torque control). The position controller was implemented as
an outer loop wrapped around the inner torque controller.
The desired torque was given by
Td = k p (θd − θ ) − kv θ̇ (10)
Position step responses were first obtained for the air muscle
actuation alone. The same experiments were then carried
out with the hybrid actuation scheme. One trial of position
step response for air muscle actuation and for air muscle-
DC motor combination is shown in Fig. 9. As before, the
position control based on the Macro-Mini control scheme

1826
shows a bandwidth 6 times greater than the air muscle Torque step responses have shown robust control perfor-
position control alone. mance and increased air muscle bandwidth, up from 0.5 Hz
to 7 Hz. With this improved bandwidth, the air muscle torque
control was then implemented as the macro control in a
0.14 Macro-Mini control strategy.
0.12
Experimental data was presented which verifies that the
torque controlled air muscles could generate torque in a
0.1
wider range of frequency to avoid mini actuator (DC motor)
saturation in the Macro-Mini scheme. The results obtained
Torque [Nm]

0.08
Tdes
0.06
Macro showed that the hybrid air muscle-DC motor actuation could
Macro-Mini
be used effectively in the Macro-Mini control strategy.
0.04
Based on the torque control approach presented in this
0.02 paper, it is believed that air muscle actuation can, in future,
0 be successfully applied to multiple degrees of freedom
manipulators, in conjunction with the hybrid DM2 approach.
−0.02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Time [sec]
The contribution of Prof. M.C. Carrozza from Scuola
Fig. 8. Step responses of the air muscle pair, as well as air muscle-DC Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa is gratefully acknowledged.
motor combination, in torque control. The joint torque was measured by an
external force sensor. R EFERENCES
[1] G. Pratt and M. Williamson,“Series elastic actuators”, in Proc. of
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intellingent Robots and Systems, Pittsburgh,
PA, 1995, pp.399-406.
[2] J. Morrel,“Parallel-Coupled micro-macro actuators, Ph.D. thesis, Mas-
sachesetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
4
[3] A. Bicchi and G. Tonietti,“Fast and soft arm tactics: dealing with the
3.5
safety - performance tradeoff in robot arms design and control”, IEEE
Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 11(2), 2004, pp. 22-23.
3 [4] M.Zinn, O.Khatib, B. Roth, and J.K.Salisbury,“A new actuation ap-
Pdes
Macro
proach for human friendly robot design”, in Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf.
Position [deg]

2.5 Macro-Mini on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 249-254.

2
1.5
1 874, Nas-RC, 1962, pp. 94-115.
0.5
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time [sec]
Fig. 9. Step responses of the air muscle pair, as well as air muscle-DC
motor combination, in position control.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a torque controller for antago-
nistic air muscle actuators in order to increase the actuation
bandwidth as well as to compensate for air muscles non
linearities. The torque controller was developed to be im-
plemented as macro controller in the Macro-Mini actuation
strategy.
The torque control is based on a differential combination
of air muscles under adaptive force feedback control. To
design the force controller for each muscle, an existing static
model was first modified and tuned based on experimental
measurement to obtain an accurate model for the plant. Next,
a closed loop force controller was implemented, using online
estimation of dynamically varying parameters.
[5] D.Shin, O. Khatib,“Experimental Validation of a Human-Friendly
Robot Testbed”. NSF report.
[6] R.A.Schulte,“The Characteristics of the McKibben Artificial Muscle”,
in Application of External Power in Prosthetics and Orthetics, Publ.
[7] C.P.Chou and B. Hannaford,“Static and dynamic characteristics of
McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles”, in Proc. IEEE Robotics
Automation Conference, 1994, pp. 281-286.
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 [8] B.Tondu, V. Boitier, and P. Lopez,“Naturally Compliant Robot-Arms
Actuated by McKibben Artificial Muscles”, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1994, pp. 2635-2640.
[9] D.G. Caldwell, G.A. Medrano-Cerda, and M. Goodwin,“ Control of
pneumatic muscle actuators”, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 1995,
pp. 40-48.
[10] Chou, C.P., Hannaford, B.“Measurement and Modeling of McKibben
Pneumatic Artificial Muscles”, IEEE Trans. on Rob. and Aut., 12(1),
1996, pp. 90-102.
[11] Z. Guanghua, L. Rong,“On the Implementation of Stiffness Control on
a Manipulator Using Rubber Actuators”, in Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf.
on Systems, Man and Cyb., vol.1, 1995, pp. 183-188.
[12] N. Hogan, “Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation
of antagonist muscles”, IEEE Trans. on Aut. Cont., vol.29, 1984, pp.
681-690.
[13] S. Devis, J. Canderle, P. Artrit, N. Tsagarakis and Darwin G. Calwell,
“Enhanced Dynamic Performance in pneumatic Muscle Actuators”, in
Proc. of IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp.
2836-2841.
[14] D.G.Caldwell, G. A. Medrano-Cerda, and Mike Goodwin, “Braided
Pneumatic Muscle Actuators”, in IFAC Conf. on Int. Autonomous
Vehicles, Southampton, UK, 1993,
[15] D.G.Caldwell, G. A. Medrano-Cerda, and Mike Goodwin, “Control of
Pneumatic muscle actuators”, in IEEE Trans. Syst. Man., Cybernetics,
vol. 24, 1994, pp.28-38.
[16] Shadow Robot Company Ltd, www.shadow.org.uk
[17] G.K. Klute, B. Hannaford,“Fatigue Characteristics of McKibben Arti-
ficial Muscle Actuators”, in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, Victoria, BC, Canada, 1998, pp. 1776-82.

1827