Journal of Robotics

Journal of Robotics / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 4187048 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4187048

Srikanth Kolachalama, Sridhar Lakshmanan, "Continuum Robots for Manipulation Applications: A Survey", Journal of Robotics, vol. 2020, Article ID 4187048, 19 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4187048

Continuum Robots for Manipulation Applications: A Survey

Academic Editor: Weitian Wang
Received11 Feb 2020
Accepted11 Jun 2020
Published18 Jul 2020

Abstract

This paper presents a literature survey documenting the evolution of continuum robots over the past two decades (1999–present). Attention is paid to bioinspired soft robots with respect to the following three design parameters: structure, materials, and actuation. Using this three-faced prism, we identify the uniqueness and novelty of robots that have hitherto not been publicly disclosed. The motivation for this study comes from the fact that continuum soft robots can make inroads in industrial manufacturing, and their adoption will be accelerated if their key advantages over counterparts with rigid links are clear. Four different taxonomies of continuum robots are included in this study, enabling researchers to quickly identify robots of relevance to their studies. The kinematics and dynamics of these robots are not covered, nor is their application in surgical manipulation.

1. Introduction

1.1. Why Continuum Robots?

In the manufacturing industry, robots have steadily gained importance in assembly-line operations due to their compelling value proposition: reduced cycle-time and increased accuracy, along with a skillset [1]. A typical industrial robot is floor-mounted for safety and consists of discrete rigid links that are actuated for gross movement of the end effector and of a task-appropriate end effector with fine motor control. Sophisticated control software operates individual robots or coordinates multiple robots in order to maximize their value in a specific industrial operation [2].

Against this backdrop, continuum robots are emerging as a novel concept, at least in research, with the potential to be used across a wide range of industrial applications [3]. Continuum robots are hyperflexible electromechanical structures with infinite degrees of freedom which provide them with the ability to maneuver complex curvilinear pathways (a survey on continuum manipulators [4]). A key advantage of continuum robots over those with rigid links is that, due to their considerably lower weight for the same maximum output force, they can be ceiling-mounted as opposed to floor-mounted. This advantage significantly increases their safety when they are used in joint operations with humans on the factory floor [5]. On the flip side, continuum robots are inherently more nonlinear and thereby harder to control than their discrete rigid-link counterparts, thereby presenting a barrier to adoption in the industry [6].

Continuum robots have increased flexibility, and thereby dexterity, compared to their rigid-link counterparts (the importance of continuum robots [7]). Figure 1 from [8] illustrates the essential difference between a discrete, a serpentine, and a continuous-link structure. It is clear from this figure that continuum structures have more degrees of freedom to move, and thereby, they are able to move more precisely along the shape of an object. In addition, their ends can position themselves in many more 3D facing directions compared to rigid-link structures. Researchers are developing continuum robots for a variety of navigation [9] and exploration [10], manufacturing and assembly [11], and medical and surgical applications [12].

1.2. Bioinspired Robots

When it comes to continuous actuated structures, biological systems from nature (Figure 1) have some compelling characteristics worth mimicking: symmetric and optimized design, evolution-enabled uniqueness for the task at hand, and, finally, energy-efficient kinematics and dynamics for survival (survey of bioinspiration [13]). Researchers have been inspired by the animal and plant kingdoms when it comes to designing their continuum robots, and Table 1 presents our first taxonomy, namely, the bioinspiration behind various robots surveyed herein: our survey includes multiple references to Walker’s research group publications—they are not only one of the earliest to investigate biological structures for continuum robots, starting with the elephant’s trunk [27], but they have also had the largest footprint of any research group, the left column of Table 1 [1431].


BioinspirationReferenceModelContinuum robot (example)

Elephant trunk[1431]
Spine of a mammal[3255]
Snake[5671]
Octopus arm[7283]
Tentacle[84103], [104113], [114131]
Human arm and finger[132159]
Biological vine and plant[160181]
Tongue and tail of a reptile[182, 183]

1.3. Survey Organization

Continuously articulated structures in the bio-kingdom are made up of muscles, tendons, fibers, and joints. One of the three focus areas of this paper is a survey and taxonomy of continuum robots from the standpoint of their mechanical structure (Section 2). The influence of the bio-kingdom on continuum robots is so complete that an overwhelming majority of continuum robots are made of soft materials that allow these robots to have the required flexibility. The second focus area of this paper is a survey and taxonomy of continuum (soft) robots in terms of materials (Section 2). Continuous robotics use hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical actuators. Our final taxonomy of continuum robots is based on a survey of the types of actuators used to achieve their motion (Section 4). The paper concludes with some broad remarks regarding the robots surveyed and some observations on where the field is headed (Section 5). More than two hundred references are cited herein, and the citation details are at the end of this paper (References). We reiterate that the kinematics and dynamics of these robots, including sensors and control, as well as their application in various surgical applications, are beyond the scope of this paper. For those topics, we refer to the following excellent surveys: [12, 184, 185].

2. Structure and Material

The taxonomy and evolution, along with the materials used, of continuum robot development inspired by biostructures are discussed in this section.

2.1. Structure

The structure of the continuum robot used for manipulation is broadly classified into a single or multisegment robot in the early phases of research [186]. In order to enhance the functionality, multiple discs are inputted as a backbone for these robots in order to mimic a continuum structure, examples of which are shown in Table 2. Every continuum robot developed falls into the category of bioinspiration mentioned in Table 1, and the description in Table 2 provides a brief outline of the models developed.


Robot structureDescriptionApplicationAdvantageReferences (examples)

Single segmentRobot body consists of a single backbone-like structure with limited constant curvature freedom of motion.CleaningSimple structureElephant: [15]
Human arm: [156]
Octopus: [76]
Vine: [179]
MultisegmentRobot body consists of multiple segments, each with the freedom to move as a single element structure, but independent of other elements.InspectionConnected controlElephant: [14]
Human arm: [51]
Vine: [173]
Tongue and tail: [183]
Snake: [70]
Single segment-multidiscThe robot body is composed of multiple discs of the same or varying radii arranged equidistant from each other, along with a backbone structure that is a single segment.Medical surgeryManeuverabilityElephant: [28]
Mammalian spine: [35]
Snake: [32]
Tentacle: [87]
Tongue and tail: [182]
Vine: [166]
Multi segment-multidiscThe robot body is composed of multiple discs of the same or varying radii arranged equidistant from each other, along with a backbone structure that is of multiple segments.MobilityMultipurposeElephant: [24]
Mammalian spine: [42]
Snake: [63]
Tentacle: [91]
Human arm: [157]
Vine: [180]
Continuous structureRobot body consists of multiple fibers braided together. The fiber ends are connected to cables that can be individually wound up/down from a pulley.ManipulationFlexibilitySnake: [68]
Octopus: [72]
Tentacle: [90]
Biological vine: [161]
Human arm: [149]
Plant: [181]

In the early phases of research [1420], known as first-generation continuum robots, the elephant trunk models [187] were constructed with a maximum of three segments with pneumatic actuation. Jones and Walker, along with researchers at Clemson University, had developed two robots, OctArm [14] and Air-Octor [16], with a single segment mimicking a trunk (Figure 2(a)). The soft gripper developed in the shape of a cone [18] is an example of the single-segmented robot. The soft manipulator [17] is bisegmented, and the granular robots [20] are the additional models with dual and triple segments (Figure 2(b)). As an advancement, the research on the second-generation robots consists of trunks with a backbone and multiple discs, with the increased complexity of actuation and manipulation. These trunks consist of multiple segments with dual actuation, i.e., electric motor and pneumatic [2128]. In the current research scenario, the third-generation continuum robot, which is known as the bionic handling assistant (BHA) model developed by Festo [2931], has entered the production environment. This is an advanced prototype that is constructed using the concepts of lightweight design and possesses the capability to operate with increased flexibility. This model consists of three segments with variable curvatures supported by tendons and with a weight of 1.8 kg. The structure and components of the BHA are shown in Figure 2(c), along with the three-fingered end effectors to grasp the objects.

Continuum models inspired by the spine of the mammal [3255] and snake [5671] are the most common examples of the multidisc biomodels with single or multiple segments that consist of a structured alignment of discs, as shown in Figure 3(a). Spine structures can possess only bending movements with limited angular constraints and with a fixed base, and snakes belong to the class of reptiles that have the capability to elongate their bodies without limbs to grasp or manipulate objects with precision in a confined space. The single-segment-multidisc models, spine [3242] and snake [5662], are generally made up of circular metal structures equidistantly placed along the backbone. The discs are magnetically polarized so that the distance between the discs remains constant and can take up the shape of constant curvature to achieve the hemispherical surface of the end effector. These discs are either made up of steel or hard polyamide material. The multisegmented models of the spine [4355] are aligned with metal intervertebral discs aligned at a constant distance that provide nonlinear damping characteristics, and snake [6367] is constructed with cylindrical tubes connected with joints with rotational and translational degrees of freedom and mostly used for inspection through holes, as shown in Figure 3(b). To reach the model of a continuum structure, snake models [6871] are developed that are made up of braided or shape memory alloy materials and consist of dual actuation, i.e., are cable or pneumatic driven.

Octopus- and tentacle-inspired [84131] models are mostly single-segmented examples. Octopus is a class of cephalopods whose structure is symmetric along the axis bisecting its two eyes, whereas tentacle is a long-elongated organ (example of tentacle inspired robot [121]) present in many invertebrates that usually occurs in pairs. The legs of the octopus have the unique capability to perform locomotion and manipulation [188], and tentacles are tiny thread-like structures that are used for grasping and feeding along with sensory reception, which proves the easy choice for robotics enthusiasts to develop continuum structures that are single-segmented (Figure 4(a)). Laschi et al. [7276] are one of the early researchers who developed continuum robot models built with longitudinal and transverse actuators using silicone and braided fiber as materials (Figure 3(b)). To develop a realistic case scenario, Guglielmino et al. [78] had obtained consent with respect to EU regulations to perform morphometric analysis on several anaesthetized octopuses with the support of a marine biologist. This experiment provided detailed information regarding the structure of octopus limbs, which assisted in developing prototypes [7983] using shape memory alloys (current sensitive) and fluid actuators mimicking the animal behavior.

The human arm is the most complex biomodel, and researchers have developed models that augment safety in manipulation applications with respect to physical human interaction. All such robot structures can be categorized into two models, i.e., multifingered hand robots (Figure 5) and multijoint extendable arms (Table 3). All the multifingered hand robots [132146] were developed to have a similar structure, with a metal or plastic base and fingers made up of hardened polyamide material. The human arm robots [147159, 189] are designed with multijoints and a unique end effector and are categorized based on the application perspective, as shown in Table 3.


Inflatable arm/safe human interaction [147]
Exoskeleton/support for heavy lifting [148]
Extendable arm/inspection and penetration [149]
NASA—planetary arm/space exploration [155]
0
Hand-held arm/cleaning and drilling [151]
1
Anthropomorphic bot/games and recreation [152]
2
Inflatable joint robot/ brittle material manipulation [154]
3
Reconfigurable robot/rehabilitation assistance [156]
4
Collaborative robot/coordination [158]
Arm robot/grasping and holding [157]
Fabric-based arm/lightweight model [153]
Robo-glove/ grasping and manipulation [189]

All the biomodels discussed in the previous sections are animal-inspired robots. In this section, the continuum robots that are vine and plant inspired are explored. The hyperflexible manipulator (HFM) developed by Suzuki et al. [160] is one of the best examples of vine inspired, consisting of multiple underactuated links and nonelastic passive joints resembling a rope used for better casting and winding along the object. The primary application of vine-inspired robots is in the field of space and planetary exploration. Scientists at NASA, Mehling et al. [161] and Tonapi et al. [163], developed a tendril robot (Figure 6(a)) and a robotic manipulator for minimally invasive inspection along with manipulation for space operations [160170]. The tendril robot consists of three subsystems with nine motors of actuation, body mechanism, and avionics, as shown in Figure 6(a) [161]. In order to utilize the capability of extending their segments longitudinally, the class of continuum robots [175181] inspired by biological plants was developed. Their structure is pneumatically actuated [181], which controls the longitudinal height and is made up of a polyamide structure that is widely used in deploying antennas [177179] or in operations that require a periscope [175, 180]. To enhance the application areas of vine robots, researchers found advantages of using these structures [171174] in further applications, including autonomous refueling, exploration [174], water spraying [171], aircraft fueling [173], body inspection [170, 176], and engine repair [172], as shown in Figure 6(b).

The final categorization of the continuum robots is the structure inspired by the tail and chameleon tongue of an animal. The chameleon tongue-inspired robot (Figure 7(b)) [183] consists of a mechanism that can accommodate the principle of elastic energy storage and release, which can elongate to 1.5 times its body length and can exert a force of 500 m/s2. The tail (Figure 7(a)) [182] on the structures has very few engineering applications, which are envisioned for use on board a mobile robot to provide a means separate from the locomotion mechanism (e.g., legs or wheels) to generate external forces and moments to stabilize and/or maneuver the robot.

2.2. Material

The material of choice for bioinspired continuum robots is polyamide—a polymerized molecular chain made of nylon braided blend or carbon amalgamation (e.g., borax and vinyl alcohol) whose strength, elasticity, and flexibility can be customized per the application. Other materials used in construction of continuum robots are silicone, nitinol, aluminum, braided fabrics, and shape memory alloys. Tables 4 and 5 provide a taxonomy of various materials used in the construction of continuum robots.


Polyamide materialAdvantagesRobots (examples)

PolycarbonateDurability, high impact, and low scratch resistanceExploration robot [174]
Polyamide-rubber amalgamationContraction and elongationArtificial muscles [190]
PolyurethaneLightweight design, temperature resistanceEngine repair robot [172]
PolyetheneElasticity and bending, low costPeriscope and antenna robot [178]
Polyamide-carbon amalgamationHighly flexible, oxidation and corrosion resistance, electrical conductivity, resistance, and elasticityBionic trunk [2931]


Other materialsAdvantagesRobots (examples)

SiliconeAbundantly available with lost cost and provides extraneous flexibility; resistant to abrasion, acidic, and basic ambienceOctopus arm [72, 73]
NitinolInert material with maximum nickel composition, very dexterous, and manipulativeVine-inspired robot [163], spine robot [34]
AluminumLow cost and lightweightHybrid robots—multidisc [191]
Braided surfaceHigh strength and lightweightDual-segmented [34] elephant trunk [17]
Shape memory alloyStrong and corrosion resistanceOctopus limbs [7983], elephant trunk [21, 23]

3. Force Actuator

Force actuator refers to the component of a continuum robot that drives its physical movement. The most common actuators used within continuum robots are either pneumatic or electrical motors. Although not as common, other actuators such as hydraulic, twisted polymer, thermal, or magnetic are also used in fewer applications.

3.1. Pneumatic Actuator

Pneumatic actuators [46, 190220] are the most commonly used kind in continuum robots because they are less complex and are low cost. The drive is produced by forced air injected or withdrawn from the body of the continuum structure (Table 6). These were first developed under the name of McKibben actuators arranged symmetrically along the central axis of the robot’s body with flexible pairs on opposite sides pressurized by one solenoid valve, which controls the volume and direction of the airflow using a pressure sensor. The dissection of the artificial pneumatic muscle actuator (PMA), along with the body modeled using fiber [209] or braided [206] material, is shown in Figure 8. PMA provides a good balance of actuation performance and power-to-weight ratio, the description of which is significantly explained in the survey [221]. Further examples of continuum robotic structures developed using the PMA are shown in [46, 190, 191, 212220].


PMADescriptionUsageAdvantage

Braided material [192207]Produced using weaving and knitting methodology.Mostly used in the manufacturing industry and lightweight machine operations.This structure possesses the useful property of elongation and compression with respect to the input air pressure.
Fiber material [208211]Two kinds of fibers are currently used in the industry, depending on the application, produced by plants, animals, and geological processes.Used in every technical engineering application. Suitable for heavyweight operation.Possesses excellent twisting and longitudinal strength.

3.2. Electrical Motors

The tendon-driven continuum manipulators are the first structures developed with bending segments of adjustable length. These structures assist the body to generate curves with variable curvature radii, which augments the efficiency of grasping. Researchers examined the properties of tentacle-like continuum robots and arranged tendons in pairs that are actuated by motors. Almost every structure with a built-in tendon is actuated by electric motors (direct current, servo, or stepper motors) (Table 7).


Electrical motorsApplication robots (examples)

Direct current motorsTendril robot, hyperflexible/dexterous manipulator [161, 165, 169]
Servo electric motorsBraided octopus arm, silicone arm robot, multidisc robot [72]
Stepper electric motorsMultidisc tentacle arm [87, 222]

3.3. Drive Mechanisms

In general, the articles referenced in this paper do not discuss the underlying drive mechanism in detail as they focus on the novelty of their continuum robots with respect to design elements and mobility. The drive mechanism of the continuum robot is generally categorized into either tendon or nontendon driven (Figure 9). These mechanisms have common functionality of manipulation along with defining the body shape and the end-effector position of the robot (Table 8).


Drive mechanismForce actuationAdvantagesDisadvantagesMaterial

Tendon driven [3271]Electric or pneumaticSimple calculation and low error in estimating the end-effector positionComplex body structurePolyamide structure
Nontendon driven [192211]Pneumatic (PMA)Simple body structure to contract and elongateComplex calculation and high error in estimating the end-effector positionBraided and fiber

4. Additional Design Elements

In this section, we briefly outline some additional information with respect to dual actuation and sensors. Some of the primary continuum robotic structures have a built-in dual actuator (pneumatic and electrical motor), which provides the additional advantage of increased actuation capability and reduced errors in movement, i.e., manipulating the end effector to the desired location, obtaining the desired shape of the robot with increased degrees of freedom, and so on. The bionic arm is the latest example that utilizes the advantage of the dual actuator mechanism. One of the main challenges for developing continuum robots for manipulation is estimating the required amount of actuation, the shape of the robot, and the position of the end effector at an instant in real time. The information regarding these parameters can be obtained using various sensors inbuilt in the system, which can hugely assist in the robotic control to achieve the defined task. Although the control techniques are out of the scope of this survey, we briefly mention different kinds of sensors [222240] used in the current research scenario. Sensors in the field of soft robots are broadly classified into three categories based on their application, i.e., force actuation, shape, and end-effector position estimation. Among the various sensors adopted, the optical sensor proves the best because of its lower error tolerance and its ability to be utilized for the dual purpose of shape and end-effector position estimation (Table 9).


ApplicationSensor typeDescription

Force actuationPressure sensorThe pressure sensor provides the feedback of the air pressure applied by the pneumatic actuator [226].
Torque sensorThe torque output by the electrical motor is measured by the torque sensor [222].
Robot body shape estimationPotentiometerPotentiometers consist of sliding or rotating contacts, which are installed to know the length of each segment of the continuum robot based on the change in the voltage [224].
Image cameraAn image camera consists of a high-resolution lens with a maximum frame rate to estimate the shape in real time using image processing and machine vision techniques. Common examples include Dalsa camera, Kinect camera, XCD X710 digital camera, AK 4, and AK7 [229, 230, 232234].
Resistor shape sensorThe resistive sensor is sensitive to twisting or elongation and changes its resistance proportional to the deflection [237, 240].
Fiber Bragg gratingsFBG are similar to optical sensors. These sensors are mostly used to obtain the curvature of the robot body in the static and dynamic mode by obtaining the strain information at different locations along the structure [223, 227].
Dielectric elastomerThis sensor is embedded into the actuators with distributed actuation points that could cover soft bodies. It is highly flexible and can be adaptable to soft structures to obtain information regarding surface deflections. The examples used in robotics include DEAs, VHB 4910 [236, 238].
Magnetoresistive sensorThe magnetoresistive sensor is mostly used to detect any kind of geometrical deflection or thermal sensitivity and provides an output based on the desired parameters, e.g., contraction of a bundled actuator [225].
End-effector position estimation3D electromagnetic sensorThese sensors are generic sensors that are electromagnetic wave emitters and are installed onto the shape of the robot and emit the signals in regular intervals captured by receivers [192].
Infrared sensorAn infrared sensor is less accurate when compared to other electromagnetic sensors because of temperature sensitivity. It emits radiation to estimate the relative coordinate position, e.g., MicroScribe MX [180].
Optical sensorThe optical sensor is the most accurate sensor for estimating the coordinate positions of any robotic component. It is used for modulating the intensity of light from the specific position to estimate the relative distance, which can also be used to estimate the shape of the robot, e.g., Micron Tracker SX60 [235].
Laser sensorThe laser sensor is a type of optical sensor that is capable of projecting electromagnetic radiation to a specific point on the end effector to obtain the relative position coordinates, e.g., FARO Edge laser [34].

5. Conclusion

Innovation and creativity are two of the essential ingredients in the evolution of robotics and automation, which started a century ago. Developing continuum robots that mimic biologically inspired species began more recently—two decades ago. Here, the natural design elements present in humans, animals, birds, plants, etc. provide a template for scientific progress. As a result, continuum bioinspired robots have been investigated for numerous applications.

In this literature survey, we covered numerous bioinspired continuum robot models that have been developed and provided a framework for examining them, namely, bioinspiration, mechanical design, construction material, and force actuation. The progress made in continuum robotics is very compelling and provides a great foundation to tackle the major challenges required for their use in manufacturing—low cost, reduced cycle-time, and safe human interaction.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. Dr. Alireza Mohammadi, University of Michigan, USA, for participating in initial discussions and William J. Clifford, General Motors Inc., Warren Technical Center, Michigan, USA, for supporting this research.

References

  1. B. Singh, N. Sellappan, and P. Kumaradhas, “Evolution of industrial robots and their applications,” International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 763–768, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  2. H. G. Sage, M. F. De Mathelin, and E. Ostertag, “Robust control of robot manipulators: a survey,” International Journal of Control, vol. 72, no. 16, pp. 1498–1522, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. A. K. Bahrin, M. F. Othman, N. N. Azli, and M. F. Talib, “Industry 4.0: a review on industrial automation and robotics,” Jurnal Teknologi, vol. 78, no. 6–13, pp. 137–143, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  4. P. K. Singh and C. M. Krishna, “Continuum arm robotic manipulator: a review,” Universal Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 193–198, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  5. V. Villani, F. Pini, F. Leali, and C. Secchi, “Survey on human-robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications,” Mechatronics, vol. 55, pp. 248–266, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. S. H. Sadati, S. E. Naghibi, A. Shiva, I. D. Walker, K. Althoefer, and T. Nanayakkara, “Mechanics of continuum manipulators, a comparative study of five methods with experiments,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference towards Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 686–702, Springer, Guildford, UK, July 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  7. L. S. Cowan and I. D. Walker, “The importance of continuous and discrete elements in continuum robots,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 165, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. G. Robinson and J. B. C. Davies, “Continuum robots-a state of the art,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C), vol. 4, pp. 2849–2854, Detroit, MI, USA, May 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  9. J. K. Hopkins, B. W. Spranklin, and S. K. Gupta, “A survey of snake-inspired robot designs,” Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 4, no. 2, Article ID 021001, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. M. M. Tur and W. Garthwaite, “Robotic devices for water main in‐pipe inspection: a survey,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 4, no. 27, pp. 491–508, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  11. B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, “Humanoid robots: historical perspective, overview, and scope,” in Humanoid Robotics: A Reference, pp. 3–8, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  12. J. Burgner-Kahrs, D. C. Rucker, and H. Choset, “Continuum robots for medical applications: a survey,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1261–1280, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. D. Trivedi, C. D. Rahn, W. M. Kier, and I. D. Walker, “Soft robotics: biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research,” Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 99–117, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. B. A. Jones and I. D. Walker, “Practical kinematics for real-time implementation of continuum robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1087–1099, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. B. A. Jones, W. McMahan, and I. Walker, “Design and analysis of a novel pneumatic manipulator,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 37, no. 14, pp. 687–692, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. W. McMahan, B. A. Jones, and I. D. Walker, “Design and implementation of a multi-section continuum robot: air-octor,” in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2578–2585, Edmonton Canada, August 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  17. M. Csencsits, B. A. Jones, W. McMahan, V. Iyengar, and I. D. Walker, “User interfaces for continuum robot arms,” in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3123–3130, Edmonton Canada, August 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  18. M. E. Giannaccini, I. Georgilas, I. Horsfield et al., “A variable compliance, soft gripper,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 36, no. 1-2, pp. 93–107, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. R. Kang, E. Guglielmino, L. Zullo, D. T. Branson, I. Godage, and D. G. Caldwell, “Embodiment design of soft continuum robots,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 1687814016643302, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. S. M. Z. Sayyadan, F. Gharib, and A. Garakan, “Granular jamming manipulator filled with new organic materials,” in Proceedings of the 2017 22nd International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR), pp. 396–401, Dzyzdroje, Poland, August 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  21. R. Luo, T. Wang, Z. Shi, and J. Tian, “Design and kinematic analysis of an elephant-trunk-like robot with shape memory alloy actuators,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), pp. 157–161, Chongqing, China, March 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  22. Y. Jin, Y. Wang, X. Chen et al., “Model-less feedback control for soft manipulators,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2916–2922, Vancouver, Canada, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  23. L. Zhang, M. Xu, and H. Yang, “Research on soft manipulator actuated by shape memory alloy (SMA) springs,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Real-Time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), pp. 74–78, Okinawa, Japan, July 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  24. T. Yukisawa, S. Nishikawa, R. Niiyama, Y. Kawahara, and Y. Kuniyoshi, “Ceiling continuum arm with extensible pneumatic actuators for desktop workspace,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 196–201, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  25. T. G. Thuruthel, E. Falotico, F. Renda, and C. Laschi, “Model-based reinforcement learning for closed-loop dynamic control of soft robotic manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 124–134, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  26. A. Yeshmukhametov, K. Koganezawa, and Y. Yamamoto, “Design and kinematics of cable-driven continuum robot arm with universal joint backbone,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2444–2449, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  27. M. W. Hannan and I. D. Walker, “). Analysis and initial experiments for a novel elephant's trunk robot,” in Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000) (Cat. No. 00CH37113), vol. 1, pp. 330–337, Takamatsu, Japan, November 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  28. M. W. Hannan and I. D. Walker, “The elephant trunk manipulator, design and implementation,” in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics. (Cat. No. 01TH8556), vol. 1, pp. 14–19, Como, Italy, July 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  29. C. Escande, P. M. Pathak, R. Merzouki, and V. Coelen, “Modelling of multisection bionic manipulator: application to robotino XT,” in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 92–97, Karon Beach, Thailand, December 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  30. M. Rolf and J. J. Steil, “Efficient exploratory learning of inverse kinematics on a bionic elephant trunk,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1147–1160, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  31. X. You, Y. Zhang, X. Chen et al., “Model-free control for soft manipulators based on reinforcement learning,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2909–2915, Vancouver, Canada, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  32. M. Neumann and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Considerations for follow-the-leader motion of extensible tendon-driven continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 917–923, Singapore, May-June 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  33. A. Parvaresh, S. A. Moosavi, and S. A. A. Moosavian, “Identification and position control of a continuum robotic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2017 5th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM), pp. 310–315, Tehran, Iran, October 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  34. J. Starke, E. Amanov, M. T. Chikhaoui, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “On the merits of helical tendon routing in continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6470–6476, Vancouver, Canada, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  35. I. P. Georgilas and V. D. Tourassis, “Ermis-a novel biologically inspired flexible robotic mechanism for industrial applications,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 1504–1509, Singapore, July 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  36. Y. Li and Y. Chen, “The ultimate hyper redundant robotic arm based on omnidirectional joints,” in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), pp. 1840–1845, Beijing, China, August 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  37. G. Runge, S. Zellmer, T. Preller, G. Garnweitner, and A. Raatz, “Actuation principles for the bioinspired soft robotic manipulator spineman,” in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 1329–1336, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  38. T. Zhang, B. Li, D. Wang, L. Ma, and X. Zhao, “Kinematic analysis and its applications of a novel spherical parallel manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 1309–1312, Qingdao, China, December 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  39. S. Huang, D. Meng, Y. She, X. Wang, B. Liang, and B. Yuan, “Statics of continuum space manipulators with nonconstant curvature via pseudorigid-body 3R model,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 70854–70865, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. J. Liu, T. Jin, L. Li et al., “Research on bending and torsion properties of bionic square continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 361–366, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  41. R. Coulson, M. Kirkpatrick, M. Robinson, M. Donahue, and D. R. Berg, User Testing of a Continuum Manipulator for Assistive Technology, RESNA, Arlington, VA, USA, 2018.
  42. C. Cheng, J. Cheng, and W. Huang, “Design and development of a novel SMA actuated multi-DOF soft robot,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 75073–75080, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. X. Chen, Y. Guo, D. Duanmu, J. Zhou, W. Zhang, and Z. Wang, “Design and modeling of an extensible soft robotic arm,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4208–4215, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. G. Olson, B. Woronowicz, and Y. Mengüç, “Characterization of a class of soft bending arms,” in Proceedings of the 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 462–469, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  45. N. P. Castledine, J. H. Boyle, and J. Kim, “Design of a modular continuum robot segment for use in a general purpose manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4430–4435, Montreal, Canada, May 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  46. J. D. Greer, T. K. Morimoto, A. M. Okamura, and E. W. Hawkes, “Series pneumatic artificial muscles (sPAMs) and application to a soft continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5503–5510, Singapore, May 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  47. M. Bamdad and A. Mardani, “Design and analysis of a novel tendon-less backbone robot,” International Journal of Robotics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 55–65, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  48. S. Wang and W. Zhang, “The Fluid-Skeleton Elastic Manipulator (FSEM): a novel solution for highly maneuverable robotic arms,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 521–526, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  49. U. Chouinard, S. Achiche, T. Bieze, L. Baron, and C. Duriez, “Analyzing design modification effects on the compliance of deformable hybrid serial-parallel manipulators,” in Proceedings of the Mechanisms, Machines and Mechatronics Symposium—2017, pp. 1–12, Ottawa, Canada, May 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  50. A. L. Orekhov, V. A. Aloi, and D. C. Rucker, “Modeling parallel continuum robots with general intermediate constraints,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6142–6149, Singapore, May 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  51. A. Shikari and H. Asada, “Triple scissor extender robot arm: a solution to the last one foot problem of manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3975–3982, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. A. Ataka, A. Shiva, H. K. Lam, and K. Althoefer, “Magnetic-field-inspired navigation for soft continuum manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 168–173, Singapore, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  53. T. Liu, Z. Mu, H. Wang, W. Xu, and Y. Li, “A cable-driven redundant spatial manipulator with improved stiffness and load capacity,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6628–6633, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  54. D. Alatorre, B. Nasser, A. Rabani et al., Robotic Bore Blending: The Future of In-Situ Gas Turbine Repair, IROS, Madrid, Spain, 2018.
  55. E. Y. Yarbasi and E. Samur, “Design and evaluation of a continuum robot with extendable balloons,” Mechanical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. I. A. Gravagne and I. D. Walker, “On the kinematics of remotely-actuated continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), vol. 3, pp. 2544–2550, San Francisco, CA, USA, April 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  57. P. Qi, C. Qiu, H. Liu, J. S. Dai, L. Seneviratne, and K. Althoefer, “A novel continuum-style robot with multilayer compliant modules,” in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3175–3180, Chicago, IL, USA, September 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  58. T. D. Nguyen and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “A tendon-driven continuum robot with extensible sections,” in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2130–2135, Hamburg, Germany, September-October 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  59. B. Ouyang, Y. Liu, H.-Y. Tam, and D. Sun, “Design of an interactive control system for a multisection continuum robot,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2379–2389, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. M. T. Chikhaoui, S. Lilge, S. Kleinschmidt, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Comparison of modeling approaches for a tendon actuated continuum robot with three extensible segments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 989–996, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. H. Guo, F. Ju, Y. Cao et al., “Continuum robot shape estimation using permanent magnets and magnetic sensors,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 285, pp. 519–530, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. H. S. Yoon and B. J. Yi, “A 4-DOF flexible continuum robot using a spring backbone,” in Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 1249–1254, Jilin, China, August 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  63. Z. Li and R. Du, “Design and implementation of a biomimetic wire-driven underactuated serpentine manipulator,” Transaction on Control and Mechanical Systems, vol. 1, pp. 250–258, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  64. Y. Yang and W. Zhang, “An elephant-trunk manipulator with twisting flexional rods,” in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 13–18, Zhuhai, China, December 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  65. L. Tang, J. Wang, Y. Zheng, G. Gu, L. Zhu, and X. Zhu, “Design of a cable-driven hyper-redundant robot with experimental validation,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. W. Xu, T. Liu, and Y. Li, “Kinematics, dynamics, and control of a cable-driven hyper-redundant manipulator,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1693–1704, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. B. Zhao, W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhu, and K. Xu, “Continuum manipulator with redundant backbones and constrained bending curvature for continuously variable stiffness,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 7492–7499, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  68. S. Neppalli and B. A. Jones, “Design, construction, and analysis of a continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1503–1507, San Diego, CA, USA, October-November 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  69. D. L. Bakker, D. Matsuura, Y. Takeda, and J. L. Herder, “Design of an environmentally interactive continuum manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 14th World Congress in Mechanism and Machine Science, IFToMM, Taipei, Tajwan, September 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  70. H. Mao, J. Santoso, C. Onal, and J. Xiao, “Sim-to-real transferable object classification through touch-based continuum manipulation,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER), Springer, Buenos Aires, Argentina, November 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  71. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Design, kinematics and controlling a novel soft robot arm with parallel motion,” Robotics, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 19, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. M. Giorelli, F. Renda, M. Calisti, A. Arienti, G. Ferri, and C. Laschi, “Neural network and jacobian method for solving the inverse statics of a cable-driven soft arm with nonconstant curvature,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 823–834, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. F. Renda, M. Cianchetti, M. Giorelli, A. Arienti, and C. Laschi, “A 3D steady-state model of a tendon-driven continuum soft manipulator inspired by the octopus arm,” Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 7, no. 2, Article ID 025006, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. A. Arienti, M. Calisti, F. Giorgio-Serchi, and C. Laschi, “PoseiDRONE: design of a soft-bodied ROV with crawling, swimming and manipulation ability,” in Proceedings of the 2013 OCEANS, pp. 1–7, San Diego, CA, USA, September 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  75. C. Laschi, M. Cianchetti, B. Mazzolai, L. Margheri, M. Follador, and P. Dario, “Soft robot arm inspired by the Octopus,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 709–727, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. M. Cianchetti, F. Renda, A. Licofonte, and C. Laschi, “Sensorization of continuum soft robots for reconstructing their spatial configuration,” in Proceedings of the 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pp. 634–639, Rome, Italy, June 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  77. W. McMahan and I. D. Walker, “Octopus-inspired grasp-synergies for continuum manipulators,” in Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 945–950, Bangkok, Thailand, February 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  78. E. Guglielmino, N. Tsagarakis, and D. G. Caldwell, “An octopus anatomy-inspired robotic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3091–3096, October 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  79. M. Calisti, M. Giorelli, G. Levy et al., “An octopus-bioinspired solution to movement and manipulation for soft robots,” Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 6, no. 3, Article ID 036002, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. I. S. Godage, D. T. Branson, E. Guglielmino, G. A. Medrano-Cerda, and D. G. Caldwell, “Shape function-based kinematics and dynamics for variable length continuum robotic arms,” in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 452–457, Shanghai, China, May 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  81. E. Guglielmino, I. Godage, L. Zullo, and D. G. Caldwell, “A pragmatic bio-inspired approach to the design of octopus-inspired arms,” in Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4577–4582, Tokyo, Japan, November 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  82. T. Zheng, Y. Yang, D. T. Branson et al., “Control design of shape memory alloy based multi-arm continuum robot inspired by octopus,” in Proceedings of the 2014 9th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, pp. 1108–1113, Hangzhou, China, June 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  83. J. Fras, M. Macias, Y. Noh, and K. Althoefer, “Fluidical bending actuator designed for soft octopus robot tentacle,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 253–257, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  84. H. Wang, S. Fan, F. Ni, and H. Liu, “Biologically inspired guidelines for the design of the hyper-dexterous manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 641–646, Harbin, China, August 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  85. Z. Yang, X. Zhu, and K. Xu, “Continuum delta robot: a novel translational parallel robot with continuum joints,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), pp. 748–755, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  86. M. Blessing and I. D. Walker, “Novel continuum robots with variable-length sections,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 37, no. 14, pp. 55–60, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. G. Boccolato, F. Manta, S. Dumitru, and D. Cojocaru, “3D control for a tentacle robot,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applied Mathematics, Simulation, Modelling (ASM'09), pp. 29–31, Stevens Point, WI, USA, December 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  88. D. Devereux, P. Nutter, and R. Richardson, “Determining an Object's Shape with a Blind Tactile Manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4745–4750, St. Louis, MO, USA, October 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  89. B. He, Z. Wang, Q. Li, H. Xie, and R. Shen, “An analytic method for the kinematics and dynamics of a multiple-backbone continuum robot,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 84, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. S. Sanan, J. Moidel, and C. G. Atkeson, “A continuum approach to safe robots for physical human interaction,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Quality of Life Technology (isQoLT), Toronto, Canada, June 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  91. M. Eder, M. Karl, A. Knoll, and S. Riesner, “Continuum worm-like robotic mechanism with decentral control architecture,” in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 866–871, Taipei, Taiwan, August 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  92. F. Maghooa, A. Stilli, Y. Noh, K. Althoefer, and H. A. Wurdemann, “Tendon and pressure actuation for a bio-inspired manipulator based on an antagonistic principle,” in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2556–2561, Seattle, WA, USA, May 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  93. K. Zhang, C. Qiu, and J. S. Dai, “An extensible continuum robot with integrated origami parallel modules,” Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 8, no. 3, Article ID 031010, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. M. T. Chikhaoui, A. Cot, K. Rabenorosoa, P. Rougeot, and N. Andreff, “Design and closed-loop control of a tri-layer polypyrrole based telescopic soft robot,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1145–1150, Daejeon, South Korea, October 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  95. Z. Gong, Z. Xie, X. Yang, T. Wang, and L. Wen, “Design, fabrication and kinematic modeling of a 3D-motion soft robotic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 509–514, Qingdao, China, December 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  96. J. Lee, E. Go, W. Choi, W. Kim, and K. Cho, “Development of Soft Continuum Manipulator with Pneumatic and Tendon Driven Actuations,” in Proceedings of the 2016 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI) (Xi’an), pp. 377–379, Xian, China, August 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  97. M. M. Dalvand, S. Nahavandi, and R. D. Howe, “High speed vision-based 3D reconstruction of continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 000618–000623, Budapest, Hungary,, October 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  98. Y. Tian, S. Yang, H. Geng, W. Wang5, and L. Li, “Kinematic modeling of the constant curvature continuum line drive robot,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 289–294, Qingdao, China, December 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  99. H. Wang, C. Wang, W. Chen, X. Liang, and Y. Liu, “Three-dimensional dynamics for cable-driven soft manipulator,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  100. A. Ataka, P. Qi, A. Shiva et al., “Towards safer obstacle avoidance for continuum-style Manipulator in dynamic environments,” in Proceedings of the 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pp. 600–605, UTown, Singapore, June 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  101. Y. Wang and K. Lee, “3D-printed semi-soft mechanisms inspired by origami twisted towers,” in Proceedings of the 2017, NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware and Systems (AHS), pp. 161–166, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  102. C. Meng, W. Xu, H. Li, H. Zhang, and D. Xu, “A new design of cellular soft continuum manipulator based on beehive-inspired modular structure,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 1729881417707380, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. Y. Zhang, M. Su, M. Li, R. Xie, H. Zhu, and Y. Guan, “A spatial soft module actuated by SMA coil,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), pp. 677–682, Kagawa, Japan, August 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  104. K. Hsiao and H. Mochiyama, “A wire-driven continuum manipulator model without assuming shape curvature constancy,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 436–443, Vancouver, Canada, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  105. S. H. Sadati, S. E. Naghibi, I. D. Walker, K. Althoefer, and T. Nanayakkara, “Control space reduction and real-time accurate modeling of continuum manipulators using ritz and ritz–galerkin methods,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 328–335, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  106. J. Santoso, E. H. Skorina, M. Luo, R. Yan, and C. D. Onal, “Design and analysis of an origami continuum manipulation module with torsional strength,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2098–2104, Vancouver, Canada, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  107. T. Chanthasopeephan, P. Srikirin, M. Srisap, and A. Rattapat, “Flexure design of a compliant modular hyper-redundant manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1394–1399, Lisbon, Portugal, August 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  108. G. Wu, G. Shi, and Y. Shi, “). Modeling and analysis of a parallel continuum robot using artificial neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics (ICM), pp. 153–158, Gippsland, Australia, February 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  109. Z. Jiang, Y. Luo, and Y. Jin, “New cable-driven continuum robot with only one actuator,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM), pp. 693–698, Ningbo, China, November 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  110. P. Yao, K. Li, Z. Xu, Z. Wang, and G. Bao, “Bending model of a novel long-arm biomimetic robot,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Real-Time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), pp. 115–120, Okinawa, Japan, July 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  111. T. Liu, Y. Wang, and K. Lee, “Three-dimensional printable origami twisted tower: design, fabrication, and robot embodiment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 116–123, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  112. J. D. Ho, K. H. Lee, W. L. Tang, K. Althoefer, J. Lam, and K. W. Kwok, “Control of a soft redundant manipulator under variable loading through localized online learning,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 32, no. 21, pp. 1168–1183. View at: Google Scholar
  113. S. Mosqueda, Y. Moncada, C. Murrugarra, and H. León-Rodriguez, “Constant curvature kinematic model analysis and experimental validation for tendon driven continuum manipulators,” in Proceedings of the ICINCO, no. 2, pp. 221–228, Portu, Portugal, July 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  114. L. Manfredi, L. Yue, J. Zhang, and A. Cuschieri, “A 4 DOFs variable stiffness soft module,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 94–99, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  115. F. Xu, H. Wang, K. W. S. Au, W. Chen, and Y. Miao, “Underwater dynamic modeling for a cable-driven soft robot arm,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2726–2738, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. K. T. Song and H. C. Tsai, “Visual servoing and compliant motion control of a continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the 2018 18th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), pp. 734–739, PyeongChang, South Korea, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  117. N. Lin, P. Wu, M. Wang, F. Yang, J. Wei, and X. Chen, “Design and control of a soft combined actuator,” in Proceedings of the 2018 WRC Symposium on Advanced Robotics and Automation (WRC SARA), pp. 255–260, Beijing, China, August 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  118. A. Ishii, Y. Ambe, Y. Yamauchi et al., “Design and development of biaxial active nozzle with flexible flow channel for air floating active scope camera,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 442–449, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  119. C. Wang, C. Yang, and R. Kang, “Kinematic flexibility analysis of a wire-driven continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 337–342, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  120. N. K. Uppalapati and G. Krishnan, “Design of soft continuum manipulators using parallel asymmetric combination of fiber reinforced elastomers,” 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. A. Mishra, A. Mondini, E. Del Dottore, A. Sadeghi, F. Tramacere, and B. Mazzolai, “Modular continuum manipulator: analysis and characterization of its basic module,” Biomimetics, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 3, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. X. Peng, N. Zhang, L. Ge, and G. Gu, “Dimension optimization of pneumatically actuated soft continuum manipulators,” in Proceedings of the 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 13–18, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  123. G. Wu and G. Shi, “Experimental statics calibration of a multi-constraint parallel continuum robot,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 136, pp. 72–85, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. A. A. Nazari, D. Castro, and I. S. Godage, “Forward and inverse kinematics of a single section inextensible continuum arm,” in Proceedings of the DePaul School of Computing & Digital Media (SCD) Research Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, 2019, http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06518. View at: Google Scholar
  125. N. Lin, P. Wu, M. Wang et al., “IMU-based active safe control of a variable stiffness soft actuator,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1247–1254, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. F. Xu, H. Wang, J. Wang, K. W. S. Au, and W. Chen, “Underwater dynamic visual servoing for a soft robot arm with online distortion correction,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 979–989, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. J. C. Case, M. C. Yuen, J. Jacobs, and R. Kramer-Bottiglio, “Robotic skins that learn to control passive structures,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2485–2492, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. H. B. Gilbert and I. S. Godage, “Validation of an extensible rod model for soft continuum manipulators,” in Proceedings of the 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 711–716, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  129. G. Fang, X. Wang, K. Wang et al., “Vision-based online learning kinematic control for soft robots using local Gaussian process regression,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1194–1201, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. J. Garbulinski and N. M. Wereley, “Workspace analysis of multi-section continuum pneumatic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2019 SMART, p. 167, Paris, France, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  131. X. XFang, G. Bao, and Q. Yang, “Design and modeling of a novel variable stiffness mechanism,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2491–2495, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  132. P. Sabetian, A. Feizollahi, F. Cheraghpour, and S. A. A. Moosavian, “A compound robotic hand with two under-actuated fingers and a continuous finger,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics, pp. 238–244, Kyoto, Japan, June 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  133. G. Bao, S. Cai, Z. Wang et al., “Flexible pneumatic robotic actuator FPA and its applications,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 867–872, Shenzhen, China, December 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  134. M. Dehghani and S. A. A. Moosavian, “Dynamics modeling of a continuum robotic arm with a contact point in planar grasp,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2014, Article ID 308283, 13 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. S. Tiefeng, D. Mingyu, B. Guanjun, Z. Libin, and Y. Qinghua, “Fruit harvesting continuum manipulator inspired by elephant trunk,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 57–63, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  136. R. Mutlu, S. K. Yildiz, G. ., M. Alici, and G. M. Spinks, “Mechanical stiffness augmentation of a 3D printed soft prosthetic finger,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), pp. 7–12, Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  137. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Cooperative project by self-bending continuum arms,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6, Huddersfield, UK, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  138. L. A. T. Al Abeach, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Design of a variable stiffness soft dexterous gripper,” Soft Robotics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 274–284, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. R. Wakatabe, Y. Kuniyoshi, and G. Cheng, “O (logn) algorithm for forward kinematics under asynchronous sensory input,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2502–2507, Singapore, May 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  140. Y. Hao, T. Wang, Z. Xie et al., “A eutectic-alloy-infused soft actuator with sensing, tunable degrees of freedom, and stiffness properties,” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 28, no. 2, Article ID 024004, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. M. A. Robertson and J. Paik, “Low-inertia vacuum-powered soft pneumatic actuator coil characterization and design methodology,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 431–436, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  142. G. Carabin, V. Renato, and M. Dominik, “Performance characterization and improvement of an underactuated robot gripper,” in Proceedings of the ISR 2018; 50th International Symposium on Robotics, pp. 1–7, Munich, Germany, June 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  143. D. Drotman, M. Ishida, S. Jadhav, and M. T. Tolley, “Application-driven design of soft, 3-D printed, pneumatic actuators with bellows,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 78–87, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  144. C. Schlagenhauf, D. Bauer, K. H. Chang et al., “Control of tendon-driven soft foam robot hands,” in Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS 18th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pp. 1–7, Beijing, China, November 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  145. G. Yang, C. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Shen, Z. Fang, and G. Ye, “Self-Calibration of cable driven continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2498–2503, Dali, China, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  146. Y. A. Seong, R. Niiyama, Y. Kawahara, and Y. Kuniyoshi, “Low-pressure soft inflatable joint driven by inner tendon,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 37–42, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  147. S. Sanan, M. H. Ornstein, and C. G. Atkeson, “Physical human interaction for an inflatable manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 7401–7404, Boston, MA, USA, August 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  148. K. Xu, D. Qiu, and N. Simaan, “A pilot investigation of continuum robots as a design alternative for upper extremity exoskeletons,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 656–662, Phuket, Thailand, December 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  149. A. D. Marchese, R. K. Katzschmann, and D. Rus, “Whole arm planning for a soft and highly compliant 2d robotic manipulator,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 554–560, Chicago, IL, USA, September 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  150. G. J. Bao, X. L. Ma, X. Y. Luo, T. F. Shao, L. B. Zhang, and Q. H. Yang, “Full compliant continuum robotic finger and its kinematic model,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. M2, p. 389, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  151. A. Gregg-Smith and W. W. Mayol-Cuevas, “The design and evaluation of a cooperative handheld robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1968–1975, Seattle, WA, USA, May 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  152. T. Nierhoff, K. Leibrandt, T. Lorenz, and S. Hirche, “Robotic billiards: understanding humans in order to counter them,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1889–1899, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  153. X. Liang, H. Cheong, Y. Sun, J. Guo, C. K. Chui, and C.-H. Yeow, “Design, characterization, and implementation of a two-DOF fabric-based soft robotic arm,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2702–2709, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. T. Kim, S. J. Yoon, and Y.-L. Park, “Soft inflatable sensing modules for safe and interactive robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3216–3223, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. P. Hyatt, D. Kraus, V. Sherrod, L. Rupert, N. Day, and M. D. Killpack, “Configuration estimation for accurate position control of large-scale soft robots,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 88–99, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  156. S. Xu, G. Li, D. Song, L. Sun, and J. Liu, “Real-time shape recognition of a deformable link by using a self-organizing map,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 586–591, Munich, Germany, August 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  157. K. Xu, Z. Liu, B. Zhao, H. Liu, and X. Zhu, “Composed continuum mechanism for compliant mechanical postural synergy: an anthropomorphic hand design example,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 132, pp. 108–122, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. A. L. Orekhov, G. L. Johnston, C. Abah, H. Choset, and N. Simaan, “Towards collaborative robots with sensory awareness: preliminary results using multi-modal sensing,” in Proceedings of the ICRA-2019, Montreal, Canada, May 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  159. K. Zhang, Y. Zhu, C. Lou, P. Zheng, and M. Kovač, “A design and fabrication approach for pneumatic soft robotic arms using 3D printed origami skeletons,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 821–827, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  160. T. Suzuki, Y. Ebihara, Y. Ando, and M. Mizukawa, “Casting and winding manipulation with hyper-flexible manipulators,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1674–1679, Beijing, China, October 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  161. J. S. Mehling, M. A. Diftler, M. Chu, and M. Valvo, “A minimally invasive tendril robot for in-space inspection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. BioRob 2006, pp. 690–695, Pisa, Italy, February 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  162. M. B. Wooten and I. D. Walker, “A novel vine-like robot for in-orbit inspection,” in Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems, pp. 1–11, Bellevue, WA, USA, July 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  163. M. M. Tonapi, I. S. Godage, and I. D. Walker, “Design, modeling and performance evaluation of a long and slim continuum robotic cable,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2852–2859, Chicago, IL, USA, September 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  164. M. Wooten, C. Frazelle, I. D. Walker, A. Kapadia, and J. H. Lee, “Exploration and inspection with vine-inspired continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1–5, Brisbane, Australia, May 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  165. M. Wooten and I. Walker, “Vine-inspired continuum tendril robots and circumnutations,” Robotics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 58, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. N. Guochen, W. Li, G. Qingji, and H. Dandan, “Path-tracking algorithm for aircraft fuel tank inspection robots,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 82, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. G. P. Scott, C. G. Henshaw, I. D. Walker, and B. Willimon, “Autonomous robotic refueling of an unmanned surface vehicle in varying sea states,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1664–1671, Hamburg, Germany, September-October 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  168. H. Yin, X. Zhang, J. Li, and J. Cao, “Grasping model and experiment of a soft robot gripper with variable stiffness,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM), pp. 134–139, Qingdao, China, November 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  169. D. Nahar, P. M. Yanik, and I. D. Walker, “Robot tendrils: long, thin continuum robots for inspection in space operations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–8, Big Sky, MT, USA, March 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  170. I. D. Walker, “Use of continuum robots for remote inspection operations,” in Proceedings of the Computing Conference, pp. 1382–1385, London, UK, July 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  171. H. Ando, Y. Ambe, A. Ishii et al., “Aerial hose type robot by water jet for fire fighting,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1128–1135, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. M. Wang, D. Palmer, X. Dong, D. Alatorre, D. Axinte, and A. Norton, “Design and development of a slender dual-structure continuum robot for in-situ aeroengine repair,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5648–5653, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  173. G. Niu, J. Wang, and K. Xu, “Model analysis for a continuum aircraft fuel tank inspection robot based on the Rzeppa universal joint,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 5, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. M. M. Coad, L. H. Blumenschein, S. Cutler et al., “Vine robots: design, teleoperation, and deployment for navigation and exploration,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 2019, http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00069. View at: Google Scholar
  175. H. El-Hussieny, U. Mehmood, Z. Mehdi, S. G. Jeong, M. Usman, E. W. ., ... Hawkes et al., “Development and evaluation of an intuitive flexible interface for teleoperating soft growing robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4995–5002, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  176. A. Kanada and T. Mashimo, “Mobile continuum robot with unlimited extensible sections,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 7117–7122, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  177. L. H. Blumenschein, N. S. Usevitch, B. H. Do, E. W. Hawkes, and A. M. Okamura, “Helical actuation on a soft inflated robot body,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 245–252, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  178. E. Amanov, T.-D. Nguyen, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Tendon-driven continuum robots with extensible sections—a model-based evaluation of path-following motions,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. L. H. Blumenschein, L. T. Gan, J. A. Fan, A. M. Okamura, and E. W. Hawkes, “A tip-extending soft robot enables reconfigurable and deployable antennas,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 949–956, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  180. E. Amanov, J. Granna, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Toward improving path following motion: hybrid continuum robot design,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4666–4672, Singapore, May-June 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  181. F. Putzu, T. Abrar, and K. Althoefer, “Plant-inspired soft pneumatic Eversion robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob), pp. 1327–1332, Enschede, The Netherlands, August 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  182. W. S. Rone and P. Ben-Tsvi, “Continuum robotic tail loading analysis for mobile robot stabilization and maneuvering,” in Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 1–8, Buffalo, NY, USA, August 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  183. Z. Zheng, K. Wang, X. Wu, Q. Zhang, and K. Li, “Dynamic analysis of elastic projecting robot inspired by chameleon tongue,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2088–2094, Zurich, Switzerland, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  184. M. Benosman and G. Le Vey, “Control of flexible manipulators: a survey,” Robotica, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 533–545, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  185. T. George Thuruthel, Y. Ansari, E. Falotico, and C. Laschi, “Control strategies for soft robotic manipulators: a survey,” Soft Robotics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 149–163, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  186. I. D. Walker, “Continuous backbone “continuum” robot manipulators,” ISRN Robotics, vol. 2013, Article ID 726506, 19 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  187. M. W. Hannan and I. D. Walker, “Kinematics and the implementation of an elephant's trunk manipulator and other continuum style robots,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 45–63, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  188. W. McMahan, B. Jones, I. Walker, V. Chitrakaran, A. Seshadri, and D. Dawson, “Robotic manipulators inspired by cephalopod limbs,” in Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), pp. 1–10, Montreal, Canada, July 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  189. M. Diftler, C. A. Ihrke, L. B. Bridgwater et al., RoboGlove-A Robonaut Derived Multipurpose Assistive Device, NASA, Washington, DC, USA, 2014, NASA Technical Reports Server, 20140005956-JSC-CN-30211.
  190. M. B. Pritts and C. D. Rahn, “Design of an artificial muscle continuum robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2004. ICRA’04, vol. 5, pp. 4742–4746, New Orleans, LA, USA, April-May 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  191. D. Surdilovic, J. Radojicic, M. Schulze, and M Dembek, “Modular hybrid robots with biologically inspired actuators and joint stiffness control,” in Proceedings of the IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 289–294, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, October 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  192. M. Li, R. Kang, D. T. Branson, and J. S. Dai, “Model-free control for continuum robots based on an adaptive Kalman filter,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 286–297, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  193. S. Wakimoto, K. Suzumori, T. Kanda, and K. Kure, “Soft pressure sensor embedded in McKibben actuator,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 1–6, Zurich, Switzerland, September 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  194. C. Suh, J. C. Margarit, Y. S. Song, and J. Paik, “Soft pneumatic actuator skin with embedded sensors,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2783–2788, Chicago, IL, USA, September 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  195. R. Kang, Y. Guo, K. Cheng, and L. Chen, “Design and control of a soft actuator driven by pneumatic muscles,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Automation, Information and Communications Technology, pp. 26–30, Bali, Indonesia, August 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  196. Y. Zhang, C. Xiang, H. Yang, Y. Li, and L. Hao, “Static analysis of novel continuum robot driven by PAMs,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), pp. 96–100, Xian, China, August 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  197. T. Yukisawa, Y. Ishii, S. Nishikawa, R. Niiyama, and Y. Kuniyoshi, “Modeling of extensible pneumatic actuator with bellows (EPAB) for continuum arm,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2303–2308, Macau, China, December 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  198. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Novel models for the extension pneumatic muscle actuator performances,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6, Huddersfield, UK, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  199. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Design, implementation and modelling of the single and multiple extensor pneumatic muscle actuators,” Systems Science & Control Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–89, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  200. X. Chen, J. Yi, J. Li, J. Zhou, and Z. Wang, “Soft-actuator-based robotic joint for safe and forceful interaction with controllable impact response,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3505–3512, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  201. J. L. Molnar, C. A. Cheng, L. O. Tiziani, B. Boots, and F. L. Hammond, “Optical sensing and control methods for soft pneumatically actuated robotic manipulators,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1–8, Brisbane, Australia, May 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  202. H. Ru, J. Huang, W. Chen, C. Xiong, and J. Wang, “Dynamic modelling and identification of a soft bending pneumatic actuator based on visual recognition,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics (ICARM), pp. 600–605, Singapore, July 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  203. Z. Ying, S. Yao, J. Chen, and L. Hao, “Research on kinematics modeling of soft manipulators,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 8th Annual International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), pp. 1100–1105, Tianjin, China, July 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  204. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, S. Davis, and T. Theodoridis, “Design of two segments continuum robot arm based on pneumatic muscle actuator (PMA),” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6, Tyne, UK, September 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  205. A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, S. Davis, and T. Theodoridis, “Novel design and position control strategy of a soft robot arm,” Robotics, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 72, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  206. T. A. Q. I. Abrar, F. Putzu, J. Konstantinova, and K. Althoefer, “EPAM: eversive pneumatic artificial muscle,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 19–24, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  207. D. Bruder, A. Sedal, J. Bishop-Moser, S. Kota, and R. Vasudevan, “Model based control of fiber reinforced elastic fluidic enclosures,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5539–5544, Singapore, May-June-2017. View at: Google Scholar
  208. G. Fang, X. Wang, K. Wang, K. H. Lee, D. K. C. Fu, and K. W. Kwok, “Visual servo control of a soft continuum robot using Gaussian process regression,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1194–1201, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  209. D. Bruder, A. Sedal, R. Vasudevan, and C. D. Remy, “Force generation by parallel combinations of fiber-reinforced fluid-driven actuators,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3999–4006, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  210. K. Takaki, Y. Taguchi, S. Nishikawa, R. Niiyama, and Y. Kawahara, “Acoustic length sensor for soft extensible pneumatic actuators with a frequency characteristics model,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4292–4297, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  211. E. Torres, K. Nakajima, and I. S. Godage, “Information processing capability of soft continuum arms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 441–447, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  212. J. Schmitt, F. Grabert, and A Raatz, “Design of a hyper-flexible assembly robot using artificial muscles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 897–902, Tianjin, China, December 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  213. R. Kang, E. Guglielmino, D. T. Branson, and D. G. Caldwell, “Kinematic model and inverse control for continuum manipulators,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA), pp. 1615–1620, Hangzhou, China, June 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  214. R. Kang, Y. Guo, L. Chen, D. T. Branson III, and J. S. Dai, “Design of a pneumatic muscle based continuum robot with embedded tendons,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 751–761, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  215. G. Olson and Y. Mengüç, “Helically wound soft actuators for torsion control,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft, pp. 214–221, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  216. R. S. Diteesawat, T. Helps, M. Taghavi, and J. Rossiter, “High strength bubble artificial muscles for walking assistance,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 388–393, Livorno, Italy, April 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  217. C. Morley-Drabble and S. P. Singh, “One soft robot: a complementary design & control strategy for a pneumatically powered soft robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 942–949, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  218. G. Gao, H. Ren, Y. Du, and H. Wang, “Research and Development of Stiffness Regulator by 3D Printing,” in Proceedings of the Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC), pp. 785–789, Xi’an China, May 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  219. N. D. Naclerio, C. M. Hubicki, Y. O. Aydin, D. I. Goldman, and E. W. Hawkes, “Soft robotic burrowing device with tip-extension and granular fluidization,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5918–5923, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  220. H. D. Yang and A. T. Asbeck, “A new manufacturing process for soft robots and soft/rigid hybrid robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 8039–8046, Madrid, Spain, October 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  221. J. Zhang, J. Sheng, C. T. ONeill et al., “Robotic artificial muscles: current progress and future perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  222. C. Urban, R. Gunther, T. Nagel, R. Richter, and R. Witt, “Development of a bendable permanent-magnet tubular linear motor,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2367–2373, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  223. S. C. Ryu and P. E. Dupont, “FBG-based shape sensing tubes for continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3531–3537, Hong Kong, China, May-June 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  224. T. Hassan, M. Cianchetti, B. Mazzolai, C. Laschi, and P. Dario, “Active-braid, a bioinspired continuum manipulator,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 2104–2110, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  225. A. Simeonov, T. Henderson, Z. Lan et al., “Bundled super-coiled polymer artificial muscles: design, characterization, and modeling,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1671–1678, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  226. X. Kong, H. Jin, Y. Chen, J. Yang, and E. Dong, “An enhanced artificial muscle module based on the decussate weaving shape memory alloy wires for soft robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 1202–1207, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  227. B. Kim, J. Ha, F. C. Park, and P. E. Dupont, “Optimizing curvature sensor placement for fast, accurate shape sensing of continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5374–5379, Hong Kong, China, May 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  228. J. Li, Z. Teng, J. Xiao, A. Kapadia, A. Bartow, and I. Walker, “Autonomous continuum grasping,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4569–4576, Tokyo, Japan, November 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  229. J. M. Croom, D. C. Rucker, J. M. Romano, and R. J. Webster, “Visual sensing of continuum robot shape using self-organizing maps,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4591–4596, Anchorage, Alaska, May 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  230. M. Hannan and I. Walker, “Vision based shape estimation for continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 03CH37422), vol. 3, pp. 3449–3454, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  231. B. A. Jones and I. D. Walker, “Three-dimensional modeling and display of continuum robots,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5872–5877, Beijing, China, October 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  232. V. K. Chitrakaran, A. Behal, D. M. Dawson, and I. D. Walker, “Setpoint regulation of continuum robots using a fixed camera,” Robotica, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 581–586, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  233. D. Cojocaru and R. T. Tănasie, “Graphic simulation for camera calibration in visual-servoing applications,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing, Computational Geometry and Artificial Vision, pp. 150–156, Rhodes, Greece, August 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  234. B. Weber, P. Zeller, and K. Kühnlenz, “Multi-camera based real-time configuration estimation of continuum robots,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3350–3355, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  235. S. Sareh, Y. Noh, M. Li, T. Ranzani, H. Liu, and K. Althoefer, “Macrobend optical sensing for pose measurement in soft robot arms,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 24, no. 12, p. 125024, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  236. Md Billah, Md R. Khan, and A. A. Shafie, “Modeling and simulation of electroactive polymer robotic actuator,” in Proceedings of the IEEE ICIT, pp. 502–507, Seville, Spain, March 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  237. O. Medina, A. Shapiro, and N. Shvalb, “Resistor-based shape sensor for a spatial flexible manifold,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 46–50, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  238. J. Zhao, J. Zhang, D. McCoul, Y. Cui, and X. Lan, “A soft biomimetic module of elephant trunk driven by dielectric elastomers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 349–354, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  239. J. Avery, M. Runciman, A. Darzi, and G. P. Mylonas, “Shape sensing of variable stiffness soft robots using electrical impedance tomography,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 9066–9072, Montreal, Canada, May 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  240. B. Kwak and J. Bae, “Development of a four-bar linkage integrated with a polypyrrole actuator and a resistive sensor toward biomimetic pleopods,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 698–703, Seoul, South Korea, April 2019. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Srikanth Kolachalama and Sridhar Lakshmanan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views664
Downloads358
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.