Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

A Hybrid Hinge-Beam Continuum Robot with Passive Safety Capping for Real-Time Fatigue Awareness

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a fatigue-aware continuum robot whose hybrid hinge-beam structure cuts fatigue drift by about 49% and whose passive stopper lets motor torque alone track stiffness and damage over 9,000 cycles.

desk verdict Novel hinge-beam design with a plausible but under-validated torque-based fatigue estimator; the 49% durability gain is real-looking, the 'accurate estimation' claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09404 v1 pith:3LTRDEAG submitted 2025-09-11 cs.RO

Tongshun Chen , Zezhou Sun , Yanhan Sun , Yuhao Wang , Dezhen Song , Ke Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords cable-drivencontinuumrobotshybridhinge-beamstructurepassivestopperfatigueawarenessmotortorquesensingstiffnessidentificationreal-timeestimationend-stop
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that fatigue in cable-driven continuum robots can be both reduced mechanically and monitored online without extra sensors. It introduces a Hybrid Hinge-Beam backbone that separates bending and torsion so stress concentrates less, and a Passive Stopper that caps motion and creates a repeatable torque spike. Experiments show about 49% less fatigue drift than a conventional design after 3,000 cycles, and that limit-pose motor torque tracks estimated stiffness through 9,000 cycles, giving three fatigue phases. A sympathetic reader would care because long-running inspection and surgical robots currently lack durability and health monitoring.

What carries the argument

The Passive Stopper is the central mechanism: a geometric end-stop that halts bending at a safe 45-degree limit before the TwistBeam enters its fatigue-prone regime, and whose engagement creates a sharp, repeatable torque spike. The Hybrid Hinge-Beam structure, composed of BendBeams with passive revolute joints and compliant TwistBeams, carries out the stress redistribution. The sensing trick is the mapping tau_lim ≈ f(K-hat), where the end-stop torque serves as an online surrogate for stiffness estimated offline from a physics-based model.

What would settle it

Directly measure the assembled robot's stiffness by applying known tip forces and recording deflection at 3,000, 6,000, and 9,000 cycles and compare with K-hat from Eq. (3); if they disagree, the tau_lim-to-fatigue thresholds lose their physical grounding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that fatigue in a tendon-driven continuum robot is both a mechanical and an estimation problem, and that both can be solved in one architecture. The hybrid hinge-beam structure redistributes stress and avoids plastic drift, while the Passive Stopper caps motion before fatigue limits and turns the limit pose into a repeatable sensing event. As a result, motor torque at the stopper, tau_lim, substitutes for stiffness estimation and provides real-time fatigue phase information without additional sensors.

Load-bearing premise

The runtime fatigue mapping rests on treating the simulation-derived stiffness K-hat from Eq. (3) as ground truth, but the paper does not validate K-hat against a direct force-displacement measurement of the assembled robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The proposed design cuts normalized tip deflection drift by about 49% versus the conventional backbone after 3,000 cycles (NTDR 0.0185 vs 0.0365).
  • Passive stopper engagement yields a distinct cable displacement plateau and a torque slope change at -1.4 ± 0.02 N·m, enabling reliable limit detection.
  • Limit-pose torque tau_lim tracks model-estimated stiffness K-hat over 9,000 cycles, with a synchronized sharp change at cycle 9,230 before fracture.
  • Three torque thresholds (1.4, 0.9, 0.7 N·m) delineate degradation, critical, and failure phases, making predictive maintenance possible.
  • No additional sensors are needed for fatigue monitoring; motor-side torque and displacement suffice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the stiffness-to-torque mapping generalizes, the same passive-stopper strategy could be applied to other flexure-based continuum robots by redesigning stopper geometry; the threshold values would likely depend on material and scale.
  • A direct test would instrument the assembled robot with an external force-torque sensor and compare physical stiffness with K-hat, separating true fatigue from cable friction and drift.
  • The phase thresholds are demonstrated on one PETG topology; extending to 3D multi-section robots will likely require recalibration or a learned mapping between tau_lim and K.
  • The 49% reduction is measured via tip drift after repeated bending; fatigue life in cycles-to-fracture could improve by a different margin, so reporting both would sharpen the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a cable-driven continuum robot with a hybrid hinge-beam backbone and a passive mechanical stopper, together with a motor-torque-based fatigue awareness scheme. The design combines BendBeams with passive revolute joints to reduce bending stress concentration and TwistBeams to stabilize the extra DOF and share axial load. The passive stopper imposes a geometric limit and provides a repeatable end-stop torque signature. For fatigue awareness, the authors identify stiffness parameters Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 in a MuJoCo pseudo-rigid-body model by minimizing the cable-site distance error at the limit pose (Eq. 3), reduce them to a scalar stiffness K-hat (Eq. 5), and then fit a mapping from end-stop torque tau_lim to K-hat, defining degradation/critical/failure phases with thresholds 0.9 and 0.7 N·m. Experiments with three topologies (reference, conventional, proposed) report a 49% reduction in normalized tip deflection after 3,000 cycles, and a 9,000-cycle fatigue-to-failure run shows tau_lim following K-hat.

Significance. If validated, the paper would offer a practically attractive route to fatigue monitoring without additional sensors, and a mechanical design that improves durability. The stopper's repeatability (10 trials, ±0.02 N·m) is a strong point, and the long-run dataset is valuable. However, the current evidence is insufficient to support 'accurate estimation': K-hat is not independently measured, tau_lim is a fitted surrogate, and the durability comparison is n=1. The contributions are relevant and the required additional validation appears feasible within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-A, §IV-C] The fatigue-estimation claim rests on K-hat, but K-hat is never anchored to an independent stiffness measurement. Eq. (3) identifies three functions Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 from a single scalar g(q*) at one limit pose; the Stone-Weierstrass polynomial forms are invoked without reporting polynomial degrees or coefficients, so the identification is not reproducible and may be weakly identifiable. The runtime metric tau_lim is then fitted (Sec. IV-C) against these feature-point K-hat values from the same 9,000-cycle run. Consequently tau_lim and the 0.9/0.7 N·m phase thresholds are calibrated correlations, not independently verified estimates of structural fatigue. Please validate K-hat against direct force-displacement stiffness tests at multiple fatigue levels and report the identified polynomials and optimization details.
  2. [§IV-A, Table I] The central durability improvement (49% lower NTDR after 3,000 cycles) is based on one prototype per design, with no repeated builds or trials and no error bars. Because all structures are 3D-printed PETG, part-to-part variation could be comparable to the reported difference. The monotonic trend in Table I is encouraging but does not establish statistical significance. At minimum, repeat the comparison with several specimens per topology, or clearly state the result is a single-prototype demonstration.
  3. [§IV-C] The phase boundaries for online fatigue are selected post hoc: 0.9 N·m is tied to a sharp trend change observed in the same calibration run, and 0.7 N·m comes from one manual severing test on a new robot. Moreover, tau_lim is a lumped signal that includes cable friction, tendon creep, stopper contact deformation, and actuator effects; the paper does not separate these from backbone material fatigue. Without an independent stiffness anchor or a control experiment, a drop in tau_lim may reflect cable/stopper wear rather than structural fatigue. Please evaluate the phase classifier on held-out runs or additional specimens and address the confound.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The notation M(q,\ddot q) is inconsistent; the dynamics are presumably M(q)\ddot q + ... Also, 'q, qdot, qddot ∈ R^77 stand for displacement, velocity and acceleration' is imprecise: q is the configuration coordinate, and velocities/accelerations are time derivatives.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The normalization K'_r2 = K_r2 / r2 should be written explicitly as a division; the current rendering 'Kr2 r2' is ambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 12] The axis labels in Fig. 12 are garbled, with LaTeX-like fragments in the right-axis label. Please redraw with clean typography.
  4. [General presentation] The introduction contains visible LaTeX commands ('leftmargin=*, topsep=0pt, ...') in the bullet list. Also, references [16] and [20] use 'and et al.' inconsistently; please normalize the reference style.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fatigue-awareness 'estimation' reduces to fitting τ_lim to model-based K̂ derived from the same limit-pose actuation; phase thresholds are post-hoc calibrations.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, 'Results and Discussion' (paragraph beginning 'Because real-time stiffness estimation...')]
    "Because real-time stiffness estimation is computationally expensive, we fitted a mapping K̂≈f(τ_lim) from the 500-cycle feature points to enable runtime estimation. ... The torque value at the limit pose was identified as τ_lim and stored for every cycle."

    K̂ is obtained offline from Eq. (3) using u*_c recorded at the same limit pose q* that defines τ_lim; the static-equation constraint makes K a function of that actuator command. Fitting f(τ_lim) to K̂ is therefore a regression of one function of the limit-pose actuation against another function of the same limit-pose actuation. No independent stiffness reference (e.g., force-displacement measurement) is used, so the 'runtime estimation' is a fitted surrogate of the model output, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, 'Results and Discussion', phase delineation after Fig. 14]
    "To define a clearer boundary for the Fracture Stage, a new robot was driven to its limit pose and the TwistBeam was manually severed, yielding τ_lim ≈ 0.7 N·m. ... Degradation Phase (0.9≤τ_lim≤1.4 N·m): ... The lower bound (0.9 N·m) corresponds to a sharp trend change, similar to that observed at N=9230 in Fig. 12."

    Both thresholds are chosen post hoc from the same τ_lim/K̂ curves that are then presented as evidence for three fatigue phases. 0.9 N·m is read from the sharp trend change in the training data, and 0.7 N·m is taken from a single manual-severing test. The phase classification is thus calibrated on the data it is used to describe, so its apparent agreement is forced rather than predictive.

full rationale

The paper contains two independent strands. The 49% fatigue-accumulation reduction is supported by direct NTDR measurements on three physical robots (Table I), so that claim is not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the third contribution, the real-time fatigue estimator. There, the offline stiffness K̂ is identified by solving Eq. (3) with the limit-pose actuator input u*_c; the online metric τ_lim is the torque at that same limit pose. The paper then fits K̂≈f(τ_lim) from feature points of the same run and calls the result 'runtime estimation'. Because K̂ and τ_lim are different readouts of the same limit-pose actuation, the fitted mapping is an interpolation of the model output, not a prediction checked against an independent stiffness or fatigue ground truth. The phase thresholds (0.9, 0.7 N·m) are likewise selected after inspecting the curves and one manual severing, making the phase classification descriptive rather than predictive. The validity of K̂ itself also rests on an unverified identification (single scalar objective g(q*) for three stiffness functions, Stone-Weierstrass forms without reported coefficients), but that is an assumption/correctness concern, not circularity. Overall: a partial circularity confined to the fatigue-estimation sub-claim; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fatigue-estimation claim rests on the PRBM simulation model, the polynomial approximation of stiffness, and an unvalidated model-based stiffness ground truth; the 49% fatigue reduction claim rests on single-prototype experiments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Polynomial coefficients a_i, b_i, c_i for stiffness approximations Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 = not reported
    Section III-A defines Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 as polynomial functions in L and theta via Stone-Weierstrass, but neither the polynomial degrees nor the coefficients are given; they are identified from the limit-pose optimization in Eq. (3).
  • Scalarization weights in K-hat = equal weights, 1/3 each
    Eq. (5) defines K-hat as the RMS of Kp1, Kp2, K'r2 with equal weights and an arbitrary reference radius r; this choice affects the calibration curve f(tau_lim).
  • Phase thresholds tau_lim = 0.9 N-m and 0.7 N-m
    Section IV-C selects these boundaries from the sharp trend change at n=9230 and from a manual severing test; they are not derived from a first-principles damage model.
  • Passive stopper geometry parameters L_f, c, L_t = 45.2, 4.8, 75.9 mm
    Geometric design parameters used in L_s = L_t - L_f - c; these are chosen from the 45-degree limit pose and FEA, and they define the safe limit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Continuum beams can be represented by pseudo-rigid body models with a small number of compliant prismatic and revolute joints.
    Section III-A reduces each BendBeam and TwistBeam to compliant prismatic joints plus passive revolute joints (with Kr1 = 0 for BendBeams), following PRBM [28].
  • domain assumption Stiffness functions Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 are continuous and can be approximated by finite polynomials in L and theta.
    Section III-A invokes the Stone-Weierstrass theorem to write Kp1, Kp2, Kr2 as polynomial sums, but the polynomial degrees and coefficients are not reported.
  • domain assumption PETG elastic stiffness decreases with plastic deformation and damage, as in the textbook stress-strain curve.
    Section III and Fig. 6 assume stiffness is a monotone fatigue indicator; viscoelastic creep and temperature effects are not modeled.
  • domain assumption FEA von Mises stress is a valid basis for transferring fatigue limits between different geometries and loading modes.
    Section II-A transfers the 5,000-cycle safe limit of BendBeams under compression to the TwistBeam at 45-degree bending based on comparable peak stress, without direct TwistBeam fatigue tests.
  • domain assumption MuJoCo static equilibrium at the limit pose reproduces the physical robot's force balance closely enough for stiffness identification.
    Section III-B solves Eq. (3) in simulation, but no model-vs-physics error is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Hinge-Beam Continuum Robot with Passive Safety Capping for Real-Time Fatigue Awareness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LTRDEAG

@misc{pith2026250909404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Hinge-Beam Continuum Robot with Passive Safety Capping for Real-Time Fatigue Awareness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LTRDEAG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09404}
}
read the original abstract

Cable-driven continuum robots offer high flexibility and lightweight design, making them well-suited for tasks in constrained and unstructured environments. However, prolonged use can induce mechanical fatigue from plastic deformation and material degradation, compromising performance and risking structural failure. In the state of the art, fatigue estimation of continuum robots remains underexplored, limiting long-term operation. To address this, we propose a fatigue-aware continuum robot with three key innovations: (1) a Hybrid Hinge-Beam structure where TwistBeam and BendBeam decouple torsion and bending: passive revolute joints in the BendBeam mitigate stress concentration, while TwistBeam's limited torsional deformation reduces BendBeam stress magnitude, enhancing durability; (2) a Passive Stopper that safely constrains motion via mechanical constraints and employs motor torque sensing to detect corresponding limit torque, ensuring safety and enabling data collection; and (3) a real-time fatigue-awareness method that estimates stiffness from motor torque at the limit pose, enabling online fatigue estimation without additional sensors. Experiments show that the proposed design reduces fatigue accumulation by about 49% compared with a conventional design, while passive mechanical limiting combined with motor-side sensing allows accurate estimation of structural fatigue and damage. These results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed architecture for safe and reliable long-term operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed fatigue-aware CDCR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hybrid hinge-beam architecture of the proposed fatigue-aware CDCR. (a) Overall assembly with BendBeams, TwistBeams, and antagonistic cables; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Decay of force per cycle. (b) Accumulation of residual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Geometric derivation of the passive stopper at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equivalent joint model of BendBeams and TwistBeams with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental platform. TABLE I NTDR AFTER FATIGUE CYCLES Cycle Number Reference Conventional Proposed 1,000 0.0142 0.0085 0.0051 2,000 0.0438 0.0191 0.0109 3,000 0.0957 0.0365 0.0185 and displacement sensing from built-in encoders; and (ii) a vision-based monitoring mo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: End-effector deflection before (solid) and after (transparent) 3,000 fatigue cycles for three robot designs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Validation of the passive geometric constraint: torque and cable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dual-axis plots of the calibrated stiffness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Characteristic Length of Hybrid Hinge-Beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Continuum robots: An overview,

    M. Russo, S. M. H. Sadati, X. Dong, A. Mohammad, I. D. Walker, C. Bergeles, K. Xu, and D. A. Axinte, “Continuum robots: An overview,”Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 2200367, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Unlocking the potential of cable-driven continuum robots: A comprehensive review,

    Y . Li, X. Wang, and T. Zhang, “Unlocking the potential of cable-driven continuum robots: A comprehensive review,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1234–1250, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    A recipe for soft fluidic elastomer robots,

    A. D. Marchese, R. K. Katzschmann, and D. Rus, “A recipe for soft fluidic elastomer robots,”Soft Robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–25, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Hydraulic actuated soft robots: Design, modeling and control,

    X. Zhang, Y . Li, and T. Wang, “Hydraulic actuated soft robots: Design, modeling and control,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 889–900, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Sma-actuated soft robots: Design, modeling, and control,

    W. Xu, Y . Liu, and J. Leng, “Sma-actuated soft robots: Design, modeling, and control,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 51 021–51 033, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Continuum robots for medical applications: A survey,

    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

    2015

  7. [7]

    Statics and dynamics of contin- uum robots with general tendon routing and external loading,

    D. C. Rucker and R. J. Webster, “Statics and dynamics of contin- uum robots with general tendon routing and external loading,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1033–1044, 2011

    2011

  8. [8]

    A review of steerable catheters for minimally invasive surgery,

    T. Greigarn and M. C. Cavusoglu, “A review of steerable catheters for minimally invasive surgery,”Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 691–709, 2018

    2018

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    A review on variable stiffness continuum manipulators: Modeling, control, and applications,

    K. Xu, L. Yao, H. Jiang, and Z. Wang, “A review on variable stiffness continuum manipulators: Modeling, control, and applications,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 58 623–58 646, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Reliability analysis of continuum robot actuated by shape memory alloy (sma),

    Z. Wang, Y . Fang, X. Zhouet al., “Reliability analysis of continuum robot actuated by shape memory alloy (sma),”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, pp. 1–10, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Soft robotic sensing and intelligence: Integration of proprioceptive sensors, state estimation, and modeling,

    D. Polly and C. Majidi, “Soft robotic sensing and intelligence: Integration of proprioceptive sensors, state estimation, and modeling,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 43–53, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    L. L. Howell,Compliant Mechanisms. John Wiley & Sons, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research,

    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

    2008

  6. [15]

    A continuum manipulator for open-source surgical robotics research and shared development,

    A. B. Clark, V . Mathivannan, and N. Rojas, “A continuum manipulator for open-source surgical robotics research and shared development,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 277–280, 2021

    2021

  7. [16]

    Improving the kinematic accuracy of a collaborative continuum robot by using flexure-hinges,

    Z. Ma and et al., “Improving the kinematic accuracy of a collaborative continuum robot by using flexure-hinges,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2024

    2024

  8. [17]

    A lightweight modu- lar segment design for tendon-driven continuum robots with pre- programmable stiffness,

    P. T. Dewi, P. Rao, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “A lightweight modu- lar segment design for tendon-driven continuum robots with pre- programmable stiffness,” inIEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), 2024

    2024

  9. [18]

    Design of 3d-printed continuum robots using topology optimized compliant joints,

    Y . Sun and T. Lueth, “Design of 3d-printed continuum robots using topology optimized compliant joints,” inIEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023

    2023

  10. [19]

    Design of continuum robot based on compliant mechanism,

    C. Zhang and colleagues, “Design of continuum robot based on compliant mechanism,” inProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Robotics and Automation Sciences, 2021

    2021

  11. [20]

    A tactile-enabled hybrid rigid-soft continuum manipulator for forceful enveloping grasps via scale invariant design,

    S. Zhang and et al., “A tactile-enabled hybrid rigid-soft continuum manipulator for forceful enveloping grasps via scale invariant design,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023

    2023

  12. [21]

    Leveraging geometry to enable high-strength continuum robots,

    J. Childs and D. Rucker, “Leveraging geometry to enable high-strength continuum robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2021

    2021

  13. [22]

    Optimization of stress distribution in tendon-driven continuum robots using fish-tail-inspired method,

    Y . Sun, Y . Liu, and T. C. Lueth, “Optimization of stress distribution in tendon-driven continuum robots using fish-tail-inspired method,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3380–3387, 2022

    2022

  14. [23]

    Actuation reading insights: Estimating shape and forces in tendon-driven slender soft robots,

    D. Feliu-Talegon, A. Y . Alkayas, Y . A. Adamu, A. T. Mathew, and F. Renda, “Actuation reading insights: Estimating shape and forces in tendon-driven slender soft robots,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2025

    2025

  15. [24]

    Hybrid tension and configuration control of cable-driven hyper-flexible continuum robots,

    Z. Chen, Y . Sunet al., “Hybrid tension and configuration control of cable-driven hyper-flexible continuum robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  16. [25]

    W. D. Callister and D. G. Rethwisch,Materials Science and Engi- neering: An Introduction, 9th ed. Wiley, 2014

    2014

  17. [26]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  18. [27]

    Mujoco: Multi-joint dynamics with con- tact,

    DeepMind Technologies, “Mujoco: Multi-joint dynamics with con- tact,” https://github.com/deepmind/mujoco, 2021

    2021

  19. [28]

    A loop-closure theory for the analysis and synthesis of compliant mechanisms,

    L. L. Howell and A. Midha, “A loop-closure theory for the analysis and synthesis of compliant mechanisms,”Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 121–125, 1996

    1996

  20. [29]

    Convex and analytically-invertible dynamics with con- tacts and constraints: Theory and implementation in mujoco,

    E. Todorov, “Convex and analytically-invertible dynamics with con- tacts and constraints: Theory and implementation in mujoco,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Hong Kong, China: IEEE, 2014, pp. 6054–6061

    2014

  21. [30]

    Discrete cosserat approach for soft robot dynamics: A new piecewise constant strain model,

    F. Renda, F. Boyer, J. Dias, and L. Seneviratne, “Discrete cosserat approach for soft robot dynamics: A new piecewise constant strain model,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1109– 1122, 2014

    2014

  22. [31]

    Rudin,Functional Analysis, 2nd ed

    W. Rudin,Functional Analysis, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 1991

    1991

  23. [32]

    Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,

    S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Mu ˜noz-Salinas, F. J. Madrid-Cuevas, and M. J. Mar´ın-Jim´enez, “Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2280–2292, 2014

    2014

  24. [33]

    Continuous backbone “continuum

    I. D. Walker, “Continuous backbone “continuum” robot manipulators,” ISRN Robotics, vol. 2013, pp. 1–19, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.