Source S1, S2
The 2025 ISO 10218 update keeps component and cell duties separate.
A supplier can help with actuator behavior, but the buyer still owns application integration, commissioning, maintenance, and decommissioning evidence.
Linear actuator force control tool
Enter the force, speed, duty, and feedback assumptions. The tool returns a readiness band, peak force, stability warnings, and a concrete next step for linear actuator force control.
Boundary: 1-10,000 N. Use the process force before peak factor.
Boundary: 1.0-5.0x. Use higher margin for impact or part variation.
Boundary: 0-500 mm/s. Faster approach needs contact-transition validation.
Boundary: 0-600 s. Long dwell raises thermal derating risk.
Defaults represent a moderate contact task with direct feedback available.
Target force multiplied by peak factor.
Screening proxy from feedback confidence.
Higher values need slower approach or softer contact.
Use for first-pass continuous force review.
Force control works when the feedback path is fast and honest enough for the contact. The actuator, load cell, controller, fixture, and surface all change the result, so the tool treats catalog thrust as only one input.
Report summary
A usable design ties load case, force sensor, mechanical stiffness, drive bandwidth, and safety validation together.
This page intentionally covers actuator force control as an alias of linear actuator force control to avoid duplicate intent pages.
NIST force-control work separates response, stability, transition behavior, surface following, force limiting, and assembly performance.
ISO 10218-1/-2:2025 split robot and application duties; ISO/PAS 5672:2023 covers human-contact force and pressure measurement methods.
| Step | Inputs | Decision output | Common failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Force target | Target force, peak factor, hold time, motion profile | Continuous and peak force envelope | Only quoting max thrust without duty-cycle context |
| Sensor path | Load cell or inferred force, resolution, drift, calibration interval | Measurable force error budget | Assuming motor current is enough for low-force contact |
| Mechanical compliance | Transmission backlash, screw stiffness, fixture stiffness, contact stiffness | Expected oscillation and overshoot risk | Hard fixture and high gain causing chatter |
| Control bandwidth | Servo update rate, filter delay, actuator speed, communication latency | Stable loop target and derating rules | Command loop slower than contact dynamics |
| Safety case | Guarding, collaborative limits, stop logic, proof test | Release checklist for the actual cell | Treating force control as a substitute for risk assessment |
Research update
The stage1b audit found that the original page explained the workflow but did not make the evidence boundary explicit enough. The updated conclusion is narrower: public standards and vendor manuals support what to measure and how to structure risk review; they do not prove a specific actuator is safe or accurate in a buyer's fixture.
A supplier can help with actuator behavior, but the buyer still owns application integration, commissioning, maintenance, and decommissioning evidence.
For assistive, collaborative, or rehab use, request the measurement method and test fixture before accepting a safe-force claim.
Ask for transition, stability, surface-following, and force-limiting traces; static push force is not enough.
Treat exact force accuracy as pending until load-cell mounting, calibration, overload limits, and drift are documented.
Test gates
| Metric | What to measure | Decision use | Evidence basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step response | Rise time, overshoot, settling time, and steady error after a force command change. | Reject actuator/controller combinations that meet static thrust but overshoot fragile parts or humans. | NIST IR 8097 treats step-response behavior as a force-control benchmark item. |
| Contact transition | Force spike and settling behavior when switching from free-space motion into contact. | Set approach speed, contact detection, and mode-switch hysteresis before pilot release. | NIST force-control benchmarks include transition stability, not only steady pushing. |
| Surface following | Force variation while moving across curved, uneven, or compliant surfaces. | Separate polishing/deburring readiness from simple vertical press readiness. | ABB describes force feedback adapting path or speed for machining, testing, and assembly. |
| Force limiting | Maximum measured force and pressure during expected and faulted contact cases. | Use for human-contact risk review; do not infer safety from actuator setting alone. | ISO/PAS 5672:2023 specifies methods for measuring and analyzing forces and pressures in physical human-robot contacts. |
| Sensor calibration | Zero, span, drift, overload state, mounting effect, and calibration interval. | Block RFQ claims that omit the measurement chain behind force accuracy. | ABB force-control manuals state force sensor calibration is required before force-control operation. |
| Thermal hold | RMS current, winding or drive temperature, dwell duration, and cooling condition. | Derate continuous force for press, clamp, and long-dwell fixtures before sample approval. | Public vendor pages rarely publish a complete fixture-specific thermal curve; treat missing data as unconfirmed. |
Alternatives and tradeoffs
| Architecture | Best fit | Strength | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Load-cell force control | Pressing, polishing, test stands, medical fixtures | Direct measurement and clearer calibration chain | Sensor cost, overload protection, cabling, drift, mounting stack |
| Motor-current force estimate | Coarse thrust limiting with stable friction and known mechanics | Lower BOM and simpler packaging | Friction, temperature, gearbox/screw losses, and stiction reduce accuracy |
| Series-elastic force control | Human interaction and impact-tolerant joints | Compliance provides force sensing and shock absorption | Bandwidth, spring fatigue, resonance, and deflection must be managed |
| Pneumatic force control | Low-cost compliant pressing where air infrastructure exists | Natural compliance and simple high-force hardware | Compressibility, pressure dynamics, leaks, and repeatability limits |
| Open-loop position plus hard stop | Low-risk fixtures with well-defined mechanical stops | Simple implementation | Not true force control; unsafe for changing contact conditions |
Evidence boundaries
| Claim | Supported when | Not supported by | Minimum action |
|---|---|---|---|
| A force-controlled actuator can maintain a commanded contact force. | Supported only after measured force traces show response and stability on the real contact material. | Catalog maximum thrust, motor current, or a controller force-mode checkbox alone. | Ask for step-response and surface-following traces with sensor calibration notes. |
| Current feedback can estimate force in an electric actuator. | Supported for coarse monitoring when friction, transmission losses, temperature, and lubrication are stable or compensated. | A universal force accuracy number across screw types, orientations, wear states, and duty cycles. | Use direct load-cell feedback when force affects quality, acceptance, or human contact. |
| Robot force mode can solve polishing or assembly contact. | Supported when a force sensor, compliant direction, speed/path adaptation, and process acceptance test are defined. | High-speed impact, unknown geometry, or force control used as a substitute for guarding and risk assessment. | Validate free-space approach, contact transition, force hold, and retract as separate states. |
| Collaborative contact limits are handled by standards. | ISO/PAS 5672:2023 supports measurement methods for human-robot contact forces and pressures. | A component-only declaration that a custom actuator is safe for human contact in every cell. | Pair contact measurement with ISO 10218-1/-2:2025 robot and application safety review. |
There is no reliable public data that proves a universal force-loop bandwidth, current-to-force accuracy, or safe human contact limit for every linear actuator. Those values remain application-specific and must be confirmed with the exact sensor, controller, actuator, fixture, tooling stiffness, duty cycle, and contact material.
Signal: Force trace rings after first contact or chatters at steady state.
Mitigation: Lower outer-loop gain, add damping/filtering, increase compliance, and retest on the real contact material.
Signal: Force estimate changes with temperature, orientation, or screw lubrication.
Mitigation: Use a load cell or create a calibrated compensation model with documented residual error.
Signal: Application needs long dwell force or repeated high-force strokes.
Mitigation: Check continuous force, RMS current, enclosure cooling, and duty-cycle derating before sample release.
Signal: Human access, pinch points, or collaborative operation are present.
Mitigation: Validate the complete robot-cell risk assessment, not just the actuator force loop.
Signal: Lab bench result changes after the actuator is installed in the production frame.
Mitigation: Test with representative tooling stiffness and contact material during EVT, not after pilot build.
Scenario examples
Premise: 80 N target force, soft pad, 120 mm/s approach, medium surface variation.
Outcome: Ready if a load cell or well-validated compliance sensor is used and the outer loop is tuned on real surface samples.
Premise: 1,500 N press force, long dwell, tight repeatability, guarded cell.
Outcome: Validate. Force is plausible, but thermal derating, load-cell overload protection, and fixture stiffness dominate release risk.
Premise: Low force, direct human contact, frequent direction changes.
Outcome: Redesign unless safety, redundancy, soft limits, and clinical validation are owned by the full system team.
Premise: No sensor, position command only, unknown part height variation.
Outcome: Redesign. This is not robust actuator force control and can overload parts or tooling.
Public sources establish safety context and architecture tradeoffs, but they do not validate a specific actuator in a specific fixture. Treat force accuracy, stability, and safety claims as unconfirmed until measured on representative hardware.
| ID | Source | Use in this page | Date/context |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | ISO 10218-1:2025 | Robot-level safety requirement reference. It addresses industrial robots as partly completed machinery before application integration. | Published February 2025; reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S2 | ISO 10218-2:2025 | Application and robot-cell safety reference. It covers integration, commissioning, operation, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal context. | Published February 2025; reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S3 | ISO/PAS 5672:2023 and ISO/TS 15066:2016 | ISO/PAS 5672 specifies methods for measuring and analyzing forces and pressures in physical human-robot contacts; ISO/TS 15066 remains relevant collaborative guidance. | Published December 2023 and February 2016; reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S4 | NIST IR 8097 and NIST IR 7901 force-control work | Benchmarking force-controlled robot behavior requires measured response, stability, transition, surface-following, force-limiting, and assembly-performance evidence. | Published 2015 and 2012; reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S5 | ABB Integrated Force Control and application manuals | Official industrial force-control material ties adaptive motion to force-sensor feedback and requires force-sensor calibration before force-control operation. | Reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S6 | Universal Robots force_mode script manual | Official force-mode API uses a task frame, compliant-axis selection vector, wrench, type, and limits. That reinforces that force mode is constrained by frame, axis, and limit choices. | Software manual reviewed 2026-06-05 |
| S7 | Tolomatic electric actuator force-feedback guidance | Vendor guidance describes load-cell force feedback and motor-current monitoring as different evidence paths for electric linear actuators. | Reviewed 2026-06-05 |
FAQ
For this intent cluster, yes. Users asking actuator force control usually need the same practical answer: how to command, measure, limit, and validate force on a linear or joint actuator without creating a separate duplicate page.
Sometimes, but only for coarse force limiting. Screw friction, gearbox losses, temperature, stiction, and wear can make current-based force inaccurate without calibration.
Use a load cell when the force number affects safety, product quality, calibration evidence, or customer acceptance. It gives a cleaner measurement chain than inferred current.
Start with required peak force = target process force times dynamic and safety factors. Then check continuous force, speed at force, duty cycle, thermal derating, and sensor range.
There is no universal value. Many industrial contact tasks start in the tens of hertz and are validated upward only after sensor delay, structure stiffness, and contact material are measured.
Chatter usually comes from high gain, low damping, hard contact, delayed feedback, backlash, or noisy force measurement. The fix is a loop and mechanics problem, not only a software parameter.
Yes. Mechanical or software compliance can reduce impact and improve stability, but it may also reduce bandwidth or positional accuracy.
Often yes. A common pattern is position approach, contact detection, force regulation, then position retract. Mode transitions need hysteresis and safe fallbacks.
Ask for step response, contact transition, surface-following, force-limiting, calibration, and thermal-hold traces. NIST force-control benchmark work supports this dynamic-test mindset.
No reliable public source supports one universal number. Treat bandwidth as pending until the sensor delay, controller update rate, structure stiffness, contact material, and motion speed are measured together.
Send target force, peak force, stroke, speed, hold time, duty cycle, contact material, sensor preference, safety context, controller interface, and acceptance test method.
A red flag is claiming exact force accuracy from actuator thrust alone without sensor method, calibration path, backlash/stiction assumptions, or thermal duty data.
Compare accuracy, response, infrastructure, compliance, maintenance, leakage/thermal behavior, safety case, and process acceptance evidence.
Yes, but custom work should start from the force profile, sensor strategy, controller interface, and validation gates rather than from a generic thrust number.
Put every answer into four columns: measurement chain, dynamic trace evidence, thermal/duty derating, and safety boundary. Suppliers that only repeat peak thrust should stay in the unconfirmed bucket.
No. It can reduce or regulate contact force, but the robot-cell risk assessment still governs guarding, stops, pinch points, validation, and operating modes.
No. ISO/TS 15066 is relevant to collaborative contact discussion, but current robot and application safety review should also consider ISO 10218-1:2025 and ISO 10218-2:2025.
It specifies methods for measuring and analyzing forces and pressures in physical human-robot contacts. That makes it useful for test method design, not a standalone guarantee that an actuator is safe.
Treat the claim as unconfirmed. Ask for test traces, calibration certificates, overload limits, thermal derating data, and the exact acceptance method.
Use direct force measurement, conservative force and speed limits, representative fixture testing, fault-state review, and staged release before production use.
Include force target, peak factor, speed, duty cycle, contact material, sensor strategy, controller interface, and validation method. That is the minimum path from calculator output to supplier review.