Conference Paper: Theoretical Modeling and Experimental Analysis of a Pressure-Operated Soft Robotic Snake
Ming Luo, Mahdi Agheli, and Cagdas D. Onal. Soft Robotics.Jun 2014.136-146. http://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0011
This paper presents a solution to a novel problem problem for soft robotics: the theoretical modeling of motion, which is much more difficult compared to rigid body robotics. A soft model snake-type robot is simulated and the theoretical model results are validated against experimental data.
Considerations (from the publisher’s reviewer’s guide)
Is the research original, clearly explained, and supported?
Based on the citations and description of the work done, the research seems original. The paper builds upon previous methods to theoretically describe the motion of rigid-body snake robots and iterative models of soft-body snake robots.
Is the data complete, accurate, and easily accessible?
- The data seems generally complete, and the paper mentions the parameter sets that were not validated through the prototype due to design restrictions.
- The data is accurate as far as I can tell and proper general statistical practices are used when making conclusions from data.
- The data presented in the paper is described clearly and presented accessibly.
Are the figures and tables, clear, readable, and support the conclusions of the manuscript?
The figures and tables are presented clearly and support the conclusion that the theoretical dynamic model is accurate against experimental results.
Are the methods and protocols clearly defined?
- The derivation of the equations of motion are very clearly defined.
- The manufacturing methods of the soft body components are well defined, but the paper lacks
- detailed description of the other components of the prototype.
- The paper does not mention possible inaccuracies due to the experimental set up (pressure lines friction, tension, head loss).
- Protocols for the experimental tests and methods for their comparison against the computational model are well defined.
Is supporting data included in manuscript, as supplementary material, or via a link to a repository?
Supplementary data is not provided, although this may be due to limitations of the publishing site.
Ethics: Are there any obvious ethics issues? Are appropriate approvals and ethics protocols stated in the manuscript? Are there any concerns about plagiarism, or data or image manipulation?
- The research itself does not present any clear ethics issues.
- plagiarism, data, or image manipulation does not appear to be present in the paper.
Are the citations complete and relevant?
The paper contains relevant citations for its descriptions of previous work on the subjects it covers.
Referee Form
Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper?
No.
Expertise. Provide your expertise in the topic area of this paper.
2 – Passing Knowledge
Summary. Please summarize what you believe are the paper’s main contributions to the field of soft robotics.
The paper addresses the present difficulty of dynamic modeling in the field of soft robotics. Since compliant bodies have theoretically infinite degrees of freedom, analytical models for soft-bodies robots are considerably more complex than that of rigid-bodied robots. The paper presents a complete dynamic model for a soft-jointed snake-like robot with rigid links, assuming constant curvature of the joints computed by the angles of the links. The system of equations for the motion of the snake is derived and a link curvature based control scheme is presented. The dynamic model is then validated against a prototype soft-body snake robot.
Strengths and Weaknesses. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work? Does the paper have strengths in originality and novelty?
The main strength of the paper is its completeness in the derivation of the dynamic model, and high level accuracy when compared to the prototype. The paper also builds off a previous paper by the same authors, where the fundamental constant curvature approach was used to give “general intuition” about the soft snake robot’s movement. The dynamic model is also compatible with existing rigid snake-like robots.
One weakness of the paper is that is does not fully describe the manufacturing process of the prototype, and does not describe the design limitations that may cause disagreement with the model, especially in the lower level parameters such as the position of the center of mass. The paper also does not provide supplemental resources such as supporting data or a repository.
Soundness. Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically/methodologically sound?
The primary purpose of the research is to present a complete dynamic model for a soft-bodied snake-like robot, and validate it against an experimental prototype. This purpose is completed via a thorough derivation of the model. The results are also clearly presented and shortcomings and relevant assumptions are noted.
Related Work. Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?
The introduction of the paper adequately describes related and prior work.
Presentation. Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?
The paper is well organized and written with the exception of a few seemingly missing equations in the derivation of the dynamic model.
Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?
One suggestion is to normalize figure sizes. For a paper published online this is not as much of an issue. Another suggestion would be to compare other researcher’s models for soft or hybrid snake robots to the one presented, or to acknowledge the achievements and shortcomings of other models.
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:
This paper seems to present a solution to a relevant problem in the field of soft robotics. Based on the previous work and citations, the work seems original.
Overall Rating. Provide your overall rating of the paper (5 is best)
4 – Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.