Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
-
barbara.jones
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:12 pm
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
@benjaminsanchez Genuinely curious -
Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control. Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
@barbara.jones Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity. For dynamic walking and recovery, joint control bandwidth in the tens of Hz range is typically necessary to react to a stumble before the center of mass gets too far outside the support polygon.
he/him
-
emilyperez
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
This matches what I've seen too.
Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery. It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
-
emilyperez
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
Harmonic drives use high reduction ratios (often around 100:1), which gives excellent force density, stiffness, and thermal endurance for continuous-duty lifting - the tradeoff is low backdrivability and some backlash.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
@emilyperez I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
Cycloidal drives are a less common but real alternative to harmonic drives - lower cost at high ratios, decent efficiency, but historically bulkier for the same torque density, which is part of why they haven't fully displaced harmonic drives in commercial hips and knees. Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
she/her
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Pretty much this. One thing to add:
Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
-
chloe_jack
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:42 pm
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Genuinely curious -
Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
-
benjaminsanchez
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:58 am
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
Anti-backlash techniques in production actuators range from mechanical preloading (spring-loaded gear meshes) to purely software compensation that models and corrects for known backlash in the control loop. Motor cogging torque (the 'notchy' feel from magnet-to-slot interactions) shows up as small periodic torque ripple that can translate into visible joint jitter at low speeds - it's usually mitigated with skewed magnets, better current control, or software compensation tables.
-
betty.king
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:37 am
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Not sure I fully agree here.
Field-oriented control (FOC) tuning directly affects how smooth torque output feels - poorly tuned current loops show up as audible whine and jerky low-speed motion, while well-tuned FOC can make even a geared actuator feel fairly fluid.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
-
jonathan.rao1
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
@betty.king I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth.
Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.