Continuum Robots: From Conventional to Customized Performance Indicators

Abstract

Continuum robots have often been compared with rigid-link designs through conventional performance metrics (e.g., precision and Jacobian-based indicators). However, these metrics were developed to suit rigid-link robots and are tuned to capture specific facets of performance, in which continuum robots do not excel. Furthermore, conventional metrics either fail to capture the key advantages of continuum designs, such as their capability to operate in complex environments thanks to their slender shape and flexibility, or see them as detrimental (e.g., compliance). Previous work has rarely addressed this issue, and never in a systematic way. Therefore, this paper discusses the facets of a continuum robot performance that cannot be characterized by existing indicator and aims at defining a tailored framework of geometrical specifications and kinetostatic indicators. The proposed framework combines the geometric requirements dictated by the target environment and a methodology to obtain bioinspired reference metrics from a biological equivalent of the continuum robot (e.g., a snake, a tentacle, or a trunk). A numerical example is then reported for a swimming snake robot use case.

Tendon-Driven Continuum Robots for Aerial Manipulation—A Survey of Fabrication Methods

“…Figure 5. Distribution of existing literature reviews/surveys in the CR domain under the categories (a) overview [54,55,59,60,64,70-75], (b) vine robots [65,76,77], (c) actuation [78-81], (d) applications [63-66,82,83], (e) medical [58,61,62,67,72,74,84-88], (f) design/modelling [60,64,68,69,80,81,89-97],(g) control/navigation[64,65,81,86,93,[98][99][100][101][102][103], (h) fabrication[68], (i) grasp/grip[104,105], (j) performance evaluation[106], (k) sensing[80,107,108], and (l) stiffness tuning[80,88,[109][110][111][112].…”