Soft and continuum robots present the opportunity for extremely large ranges of motion, which can enable dexterous, adaptive, and multimodal locomotion behaviors. However, as the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) of a robot increases, the number of actuators should also increase to achieve the full actuation potential. This presents a dilemma in mobile soft robot design: physical space and power requirements restrict the number and type of actuators available and may ultimately limit the movement capabilities of soft robots with high-DOF appendages. Restrictions on actuation of continuum appendages ultimately may limit the various movement capabilities of soft robots. In this work, we demonstrate multimodal behaviors in an underwater robot called “Hexapus.” A hierarchical actuation design for multiappendage soft robots is presented in which a single high-power motor actuates all appendages for locomotion, while smaller low-power motors augment the shape of each appendage. The flexible appendages are designed to be capable of hyperextension for thrust, and flexion for grasping with a peak pullout force of 32 N. For propulsion, we incorporate an elastic membrane connected across the base of each tentacle, which is stretched slowly by the high-power motor and released rapidly through a slip-gear mechanism. Through this actuation arrangement, Hexapus is capable of underwater locomotion with low cost of transport (COT = 1.44 at 16.5 mm/s) while swimming and a variety of multimodal locomotion behaviors, including swimming, turning, grasping, and crawling, which we demonstrate in experiment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
YangG-Z, BellinghamJ, DupontPE, et al.The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci Robot, 2018; 3(14):eaar7650.
2.
RenK, YuJC. Research status of bionic amphibious robots: A review. Ocean Eng, 2021; 227:108862.
3.
Giorgio-SerchiF, ArientiA, CorucciF, et al.Hybrid parameter identification of a multi-modal underwater soft robot. Bioinspir Biomim, 2017; 12(2):025007.
4.
PopeMT, KimesCW, JiangH, et al.A multimodal robot for perching and climbing on vertical outdoor surfaces. IEEE Trans Robot, 2016; 33(1):38–48.
5.
KimK, SpielerP, LupuE-S, et al.A bipedal walking robot that can fly, slackline, and skateboard. Sci Robot, 2021; 6(59):eabf8136.
6.
CrespiA, KarakasiliotisK, GuignardA, et al.Salamandra robotica II: An amphibious robot to study salamander-like swimming and walking gaits. IEEE Trans Robot, 2013; 29(2):308–320.
7.
ShinWD, ParkJ, ParkH-W. Development and experiments of a bio-inspired robot with multi-mode in aerial and terrestrial locomotion. Bioinspir Biomim, 2019; 14(5):056009.
8.
JinH, DongE, AliciG, et al.A starfish robot based on soft and smart modular structure (SMS) actuated by SMA wires. Bioinspir Biomim, 2016; 11(5):056012.
9.
ShapiroA, GreenfieldA, ChosetH. Frictional compliance model development and experiments for snake robot climbing. In: Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE: Rome, Italy; 2007; pp. 574–579.
10.
ShenW-M, KrivokonM, ChiuH, et al.Multimode locomotion via superbot reconfigurable robots. Auton Robots, 2006; 20(2):165–177.
11.
ZhaoJ, CuiX, ZhuY, et al.UBot: A new reconfigurable modular robotic system with multimode locomotion ability. Ind Robot Int J, 2012; 39(2):178–190.
12.
BruneteA, RanganathA, SegoviaS, et al.Current trends in reconfigurable modular robots design. Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2017; 14(3):1729881417710457.
13.
YimM, ShenW-M, SalemiB, et al.Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag, 2007; 14(1):43–52.
14.
RussoS, HaradaK, RanzaniT, et al.Design of a robotic module for autonomous exploration and multimode locomotion. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron, 2012; 18(6):1757–1766.
15.
BoothJW, ShahD, CaseJC, et al.Omniskins: Robotic skins that turn inanimate objects into multifunctional robots. Sci Robot, 2018; 3(22):eaat1853.
16.
RusD, TolleyMT. Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nature, 2015; 521(7553):467.
17.
ShahD, YangB, KriegmanS, et al.Shape changing robots: Bioinspiration, simulation, and physical realization. Adv Mater, 2021; 33(19):2002882.
18.
ShahDS, YuenMC, TiltonLG, et al.Morphing robots using robotic skins that sculpt clay. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2019; 4(2):2204–2211.
19.
HuW, LumGZ, MastrangeliM, et al.Small-scale soft-bodied robot with multimodal locomotion. Nature, 2018; 554(7690):81–85.
AndersonIA, GisbyTA, McKayTG, et al.Multi-functional dielectric elastomer artificial muscles for soft and smart machines. J Appl Phys, 2012; 112(4):041101.
22.
ZhangS, KeX, JiangQ, et al.Programmable and reprocessable multifunctional elastomeric sheets for soft origami robots. Sci Robot, 2021; 6(53):eabd6107.
23.
ChristiansonC, CuiY, IshidaM, et al.Cephalopod-inspired robot capable of cyclic jet propulsion through shape change. Bioinspir Biomim, 2020; 16(1):016014.
24.
KatzschmannRK, DelPretoJ, MacCurdyR, et al.Exploration of underwater life with an acoustically controlled soft robotic fish. Sci Robot, 2018; 3(16):eaar3449.
25.
SerchiFG, ArientiA, BaldoliI, et al.An elastic pulsed-jet thruster for soft unmanned underwater vehicles. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE: Karlsruhe, Germany; 2013; pp. 5103–5110.
26.
NajemJ, SarlesSA, AkleB, et al.Biomimetic jellyfish-inspired underwater vehicle actuated by ionic polymer metal composite actuators. Smart Mater Struct, 2012; 21(9):094026.
27.
ShintakeJ, CacuccioloV, SheaH, et al.Soft biomimetic fish robot made of dielectric elastomer actuators. Soft Robot, 2018; 5(4):466–474.
28.
VillanuevaA, BresserS, ChungS, et al.Jellyfish inspired underwater unmanned vehicle. In: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 7287. (Bar-CohenY, WallmerspergerT. eds.) Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE): San Diego, California, US; 2009; p. 72871G.
ArientiA, CalistiM, Giorgio-SerchiF, et al.Poseidrone: Design of a soft-bodied ROV with crawling, swimming and manipulation ability. In: 2013 OCEANS-San Diego. IEEE: San Diego, CA, USA; 2013; pp. 1–7.
33.
LaschiC, CianchettiM, MazzolaiB, et al.Soft robot arm inspired by the octopus. Adv Robot, 2012; 26(7):709–727.
34.
FrasJ, NohY, MaciasM, et al.Bio-inspired octopus robot based on novel soft fluidic actuator. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE: Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 2018; pp. 1583–1588.
35.
ShenZ, NaJ, WangZ. A biomimetic underwater soft robot inspired by cephalopod mollusc. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2017; 2(4):2217–2223.
36.
AlmubarakY, SchmutzM, PerezM, et al.Kraken: A wirelessly controlled octopus-like hybrid robot utilizing stepper motors and fishing line artificial muscle for grasping underwater. Internat J Intell Robotic Applcat, 2021; 6(3):543–563.
37.
CianchettiM, CalistiM, MargheriL, et al.Bioinspired locomotion and grasping in water: the soft eight-arm octopus robot. Bioinspir Biomim, 2015; 10(3):035003.
38.
ShenQ, OlsenZ, StalbaumT, et al.Basic design of a biomimetic underwater soft robot with switchable swimming modes and programmable artificial muscles. Smart Mater Struct, 2020; 29(3):035038.
39.
SfakiotakisM, KazakidiA, ChatzidakiA, et al.Multi-arm robotic swimming with octopus-inspired compliant web. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE: Chicago, IL, USA; 2014; pp. 302–308.
40.
LiT, NakajimaK, CalistiM, et al.Octopus-inspired sensorimotor control of a multi-arm soft robot. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. IEEE: Chengdu, China; 2012; pp. 948–955.
41.
ShiL, GuoS, AsakaK. A novel multifunctional underwater microrobot. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics. IEEE: Tianjin, China; 2010; pp. 873–878.
42.
ZinnMR, RothB, KhatibO, et al.A new actuation approach for human friendly robot design. Int J Robot Res, 2004; 23(4–5):379–398.
43.
ShinD, SardellittiI, ParkY-L, et al.Design and control of a bio-inspired human-friendly robot. Int J Robot Res, 2010; 29(5):571–584.
44.
BowlingA.Macro-mini Manipulation. In: Encyclopedia of Robotics (AngM, KhatibO, SicilianoB. eds.) Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2020; pp. 1–5.
45.
FeitlKE, MillettAF, ColinSP, et al.Functional morphology and fluid interactions during early development of the scyphomedusa aurelia aurita. Biol Bull, 2009; 217(3):283–291.
46.
JiangM, ZhouZ, GravishN. Flexoskeleton printing enables versatile fabrication of hybrid soft and rigid robots. Soft Robot, 2020; 7(6):770–778.
47.
YuQ, JiangM, GravishN. Flexoskeleton fingers: 3d printed reconfigurable ridges enabling multi-functional and low-cost underactuated grasping. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2021; 6(2):3971–3978.
48.
BaldwinJ, EnglandWR. A comparison of anaerobic energy metabolism in mantle and tentacle muscle of the blue-ringed octopus, Hapalochlaena maculosa, during swimming. Aust J Zool, 1980; 28(3):407–412.
49.
BoyrazP, RungeG, RaatzA.An Overview of Novel Actuators for Soft Robotics. In: Actuators, vol. 7. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: Basel, Switzerland; 2018; p. 48.
50.
ChoJH, RichardsRF, BahrDF, et al.Efficiency of energy conversion by piezoelectrics. Appl Phys Lett, 2006; 89(10):104107.
51.
McHenryMJ, JedJ. The ontogenetic scaling of hydrodynamics and swimming performance in jellyfish (Aurelia aurita). J Exp Biol, 2003; 206(22):4125–4137.
52.
VillanuevaA, SmithC, PriyaS. A biomimetic robotic jellyfish (robojelly) actuated by shape memory alloy composite actuators. Bioinspir Biomim, 2011; 6(3):036004.
53.
O'dorRK.Respiratory metabolism and swimming performance of the squid, loligo opalescens. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 1982; 39(4):580–587.
54.
NguyenDQ, HoVA. Anguilliform swimming performance of an eel-inspired soft robot. Soft Robot, 2021; 9(3):425–439.
55.
RendaF, GiorelliM, CalistiM, et al.Dynamic model of a multibending soft robot arm driven by cables. IEEE Trans Rob, 2014; 30(5):1109–1122.
56.
LaschiC, MazzolaiB, MattoliV, et al.Design of a biomimetic robotic octopus arm. Bioinspir Biomim, 2009; 4(1):015006.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
