Bioinspired locomotion and grasping in water: the soft eight-arm OCTOPUS robot

Cianchetti, Matteo; Calisti, Marcello; Margheri, Laura; Kuba, Michael J.; Laschi, Cecilia

doi:10.1088/1748-3190/10/3/035003

Cited by 245 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this review, we consider as part of this field each robot for which locomotion is enabled by deformable (due to inherent or structural compliance) components or which relies on such deformable components to increase quantitative or qualitative performance. This is a rephrasing of the soft robotics definition provided in [7]. As will be seen in the referenced works, within this definition we can include each robot claimed to be soft by the research community, excluding only robots where the compliance is obtained by active control [8], which are beyond the scope of this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion

Calisti

Picardi

Laschi

2017

J. R. Soc. Interface.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft robotics and its related technologies enable robot abilities in several robotics domains including, but not exclusively related to, manipulation, manufacturing, human -robot interaction and locomotion. Although field applications have emerged for soft manipulation and human-robot interaction, mobile soft robots appear to remain in the research stage, involving the somehow conflictual goals of having a deformable body and exerting forces on the environment to achieve locomotion. This paper aims to provide a reference guide for researchers approaching mobile soft robotics, to describe the underlying principles of soft robot locomotion with its pros and cons, and to envisage applications and further developments for mobile soft robotics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion

Calisti

Picardi

Laschi

2017

J. R. Soc. Interface.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a similarity of biological and robotic evolutions [16,60], our results imply that the Chebyshev linkage provides the simplest motion trajectory in the sense of fewer dimensions for achieving a function of walking, and in contrast the Theo Jansen mechanism realized a fine profile of force changes along the trajectory by using complex links, even though the dimensions are increased. Further properties will be discussed in a combined analysis with tools of kinematic synthesis [19,46,47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…The modified system provides other functional trajectories if O 1 and O 2 are synchronously moved in a specific phase relationship. This implies that unexpected and non-intuitive possibilities of the biological mechanism can be analyzed in the mechanical sense, providing a clue of how it can be utilized in a machine [16,60].…”

Section: Possible Reduction Of Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy-efficacy comparisons and multibody dynamics analyses of legged robots with different closed-loop mechanisms

Komoda

Wagatsuma

2016

Multibody Syst Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As for biological mechanisms, which provide a specific functional behavior, the kinematic synthesis is not so simply applicable without deep considerations on requirements, such as the ideal trajectory, fine force control along the trajectory, and possible minimization of the energy consumption. An important approach is the comparison of acknowledged mechanisms to mimic the function of interest in a simplified manner. It helps to consider why the motion trajectory is generated as an optimum, arising from a hidden biological principle on adaptive capability for environmental changes. This study investigated with systematic methods of forward and inverse kinematics known as multibody dynamics (MBD) before going to the kinematic synthesis to explore what the ideal end-effector coordinates are. In terms of walking mechanisms, there are well-known mechanisms, yet the efficacy is still unclear. The Chebyshev linkage with four links is the famous closed-loop system to mimic a simple locomotion, from the 19th century, and recently the Theo Jansen mechanism bearing 11 linkages was highlighted since it exhibited a smooth and less-energy locomotive behavior during walking demonstrations in the sand field driven by wind power. Coincidentally, Klann (1994) emphasized his closed-loop linkage with seven links to mimic a spider locomotion. We applied MBD to three walking linkages in order to compare factors arising from individual mechanisms. The MBD-based numerical computation demonstrated that the Chebyshev, Klann, and Theo Jansen mechanisms have a common property in acceleration control during separate swing and stance phases to exhibit the walking behavior, while they have different tendencies in the total energy consumption and energy-efficacy measured by the 'specific resistance'. As a consequence, this study for the first time revealed that specific resistances of three linkages exhibit a proportional relationship to the walking speed, which is consistent with human walking and running, yet interestingly it is not consistent with older walking machines, like ARL monopod I, II. The results imply a similarity between biological evolution and robot design, in that the Chebyshev mechanism provides the simplest walking motion with fewer linkages and the Theo Jansen mechanism realizes a fine profile of force changes along the trajectory to reduce the energy consumption acceptable for a large body size by increasing the number of links.

show abstract

“…The RoboSoft 1 community [reported in Cianchetti et al (2015)] defines soft robots as "soft robots/devices that can actively interact with the environment and can undergo "large" deformations relying on inherent or structural compliance, " thus, including also the technologies covered in this paper. Born with the revolutionary aim of unhinging the basis of traditional robotics (Kim et al, 2013), soft-bodied robots (Wang and Iida, 2015) are now demonstrating how new abilities can be enabled, synergistically working with more traditional technologies based on hard materials .…”

Section: Soft Robotics and Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Intrinsic Safety of Soft Robots

Abidi

Cianchetti

2017

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapidly growing field of soft robotics owes its success to the vast vistas of possibilities they promise. They may be utilized as standalone systems or work in harmony with the existing robotic technologies. Being based on soft and/or flexible materials, soft robots have usually high dexterity and, at the same time, they are also often considered “intrinsically safe.” This is generally true and soft-bodied robots can be considered safer from a mechanical point of view, but this is sometimes improperly used. The identification of possible safety loopholes in soft robots is the subject of this paper. After a general overview of safety in robotics, we reported an overview of the main sources of unsafe conditions that may arise by the use of soft robotics technologies. Safety aspects are discussed in three categories: quasi-static, dynamic, and material failure. Some safety factors exclusive to soft robots such as whiplash-like effect and energy stored in highly strained elements are also introduced. Measures to avoid such unsafe conditions are presented such as establishing operational limits and introduction of inspection regimes and arrest systems

show abstract

Bioinspired locomotion and grasping in water: the soft eight-arm OCTOPUS robot

Cited by 245 publications

References 46 publications

Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion

Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion

Energy-efficacy comparisons and multibody dynamics analyses of legged robots with different closed-loop mechanisms

On Intrinsic Safety of Soft Robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About