Paper Title: Thrust force characterization of free-swimming soft rob
Jennifer Frame, Nick Lopez, Oscar Curet, and Erik D. Engeberg. Thrust force characterization of free-swimming soft robotic jellyfish. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, 2018. doi:10.1088/1748-3190/aadcb3
Originality. All papers must present original work.
This paper appears to present original work. The authors designed and implemented the jellyfish robots. They site several prior works that created jellyfish robots but used other techniques for actuation.
Novelty. We welcome big idea and provocative papers, even if they may not be perfectly implemented. We also welcome papers that bring together different disciplines and approaches.
This paper presents novel work on a in-depth comparison of jellyfish material, actuation frequency and actuation amplitude with regards to thrust generated. This builds upon previous works which introduced the jellyfish robot but did not have this analysis. They also demonstrated new capabilities of the robots such as swimming through orifices.
Relevance. All papers must be relevant to the field.
This paper is relevant to the field of soft robotics because it presents the design and test results of a soft robot. It is relevant to Bioinspiration and Biomimetics because the design of the jellyfish was inspired by live jellyfish in the ephyra stage of their life cycle, and aimed to mimic soft jellyfish to help create robots that could monitor delicate coral areas without disrupting or damaging its surroundings.
Soundness. A paper needs to be technologically and/or methodologically sound based on the criteria generally used for that technology or method within a given field.
The paper used adequate methodology to gather data and perform analysis. They tested multiple values for each factor, such as having 5 jellyfish with different material composition, 10 actuation frequencies, and 2 types amplitudes. They controlled variables such as the PWM duty cycle input, and used a Strain Gauge to measure the force produced. The method for analysis was called “ANOVA” or analysis of variance.
Technical detail. Please provide adequate details to indicate what was done, how the data were collected, sample size and characteristics, what type of robot was involved, etc. Authors should use correct terminology for their methods to avoid being evaluated against the incorrect set of criteria.
The paper was very thorough of detailing the steps of how the jellyfish was manufactured, providing details on the steps of molding and how sensors were integrated. They also gave detailed explanation for how the jellyfish were controlled and evaluated during data collection. They showed plots from data collected as well as from analysis. Their presentation of results was clear; they stated the best parameters they found for jellyfish thrust. The detail on the supplementary experiments at the end such as swimming in open water and through orifices were less clear but weren’t the main focus of the paper.
Accessibility. All papers must be written to be accessible for a broad, interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary audience.
This paper was very accessible and easy to follow. I believe it is suitable for a multidisciplinary audience.
Review
- Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper? A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:
No
- Expertise. Provide your expertise in the topic area of this paper.
- 4 – Expert
- 3 – Knowledgeable
- 2 – Passing Knowledge
- 1 – No Knowledge
Passing knowledge
- Summary. Please summarize what you believe are the paper’s main contributions to the field of soft robotics.
The paper presents a comparative 3 factor analysis of jellyfish parameters on its force generated. Its main contribution are the design and fabrication of these jellyfish, and experimental results. In particular, it showed how the soft robotic jellyfish seemed to have a natural frequency at which thrust is maximized.
- Strengths and Weaknesses. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work? Does the paper have strengths in originality and novelty?
Strength: thoroughness of 3 factor analysis, applicable results, detail in explaining design and process.
Weaknesses: discussion of additional results (at the end of the paper) could be expanded upon.
- Soundness. Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically/methodologically sound?
Please write a short paragraph arguing for the strengths and weaknesses of the work.
Yes (see above notes on soundness)
- Related Work. Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?
Please write a sentence or short paragraph.
Yes, they address prior work on robot jellyfish but point out how their system differs by using hydraulic actuation with an open water system.
- Presentation. Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?
Please write a sentence or short paragraph.
Yes, the paper is easy to follow and flows naturally from design to fabrication to data collection to results.
- Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?
Please write several paragraphs detailing specific points of the paper which merit reconsideration. Be sure to address the text, figures and tables, mathematics, and grammar and spelling.
The additional tests discussed at the end of the paper may be improved by having more measurable results. For example, how long were they able to swim in open water and where they effected by ocean currents? More discussion on close these jellyfish are to being deployed without human supervision. More discussion on next steps or possible further research.
- Comments to Committee (Hidden from authors). Does the paper have enough originality and importance to merit publication? Is the paper relevant to the field? These comments will NOT be sent to the authors:
Please write one or more paragraphs as needed to justify your review judgement.
This paper should be accepted because it presents a comprehensive results across multiple factors that impact robot jellyfish swimming. Efficient and powerful movement is crucial for the development of soft robots and their deployment into the “real world”. This is relevant to the field as other researchers are designing similar soft robots, and would benefit from the results presented in this paper.
- Overall Rating. Provide your overall rating of the paper (5 is best)
- 5 – Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this paper.
- 4 – Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.
- 3 – Borderline: Overall I would not argue for accepting this paper.
- 2 – Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.
- 1 – Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this paper.