REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references
Dynamics modeling and analysis of batoid-type locomotion powered by tensegrity wing structure
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A tensegrity-wing model of ray swimming reproduces manta-ray speed trends and points to fin stiffening as the speed control.
desk verdict A genuinely useful tensegrity swimming model whose headline resonance claim rests on a fluid model that ignores added mass — treat the qualitative trends as provisional. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central machinery is the tensegrity pectoral fin: a planar network of rigid struts connected by elastic cables, with cable rest lengths driven by actuation inputs. The fin's elastic deformation, governed by Lagrangian equations of motion coupled to a six-degree-of-freedom rigid trunk, converts cable tension changes into fin shape; it is the mechanism by which in-phase actuation becomes traveling waves and by which matching the fin's natural frequency to the flapping frequency produces resonance-enhanced stride length and reduced damping losses.
What would settle it
A decisive check would be to rerun the same tensegrity-fin simulations with an unsteady or CFD fluid model and see whether (i) traveling waves still emerge from perfectly in-phase actuation and (ii) the linear swim-speed–flapping-frequency relation still appears only when fin natural frequency is tuned to flapping frequency. Alternatively, an experimental robotic ray with adjustable cable stiffness could measure stride length and speed across a stiffness sweep, looking for a peak at the model's predicted resonance frequency.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that a body–fluid interaction model with a rigid trunk and two tensegrity pectoral fins—each fin actuated by changing the rest lengths of its elastic cables—captures the essential swimming physics of batoids without prescribing fin motions. Driven by sinusoidal cable-tension signals with all units in phase, the fin surface still develops chord-wise and span-wise traveling waves because elasticity and fluid forces shape the deformation. In straight-line swimming, swim speed increases linearly with flapping frequency only when fin stiffness is chosen so that the first-mode natural frequency of the fin matches the flapping frequency; with stiffness held fixed, the l
Load-bearing premise
Every simulation result rests on the assumption that the analytical fluid-force model—constant tangential and normal drag coefficients (ct = 0.097, cn = 1.18) with no added-mass or unsteady forces—faithfully represents the fluid forces on the body and fin surfaces.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the resonance picture is right, a robotic ray can maximize stride length and minimize damping-energy loss by tuning fin stiffness to flapping frequency, making stride length nearly independent of speed.
- The linear swim-speed–frequency relation in manta rays can be explained as a consequence of stiffness tuning, implying fin stiffness is an active control variable rather than a fixed property.
- The model can generate free-swimming fin kinematics and actuation signals without in vivo measurements, making it useful for studying neural control of batoid swimming.
- Body inertial motion—especially roll during out-of-phase flapping—can speed up or slow down the fin kinematic wave relative to the actuation wave, so gait selection directly affects wave speed.
- Flapping a fin about a deformed configuration produces net pitch and roll torques, giving a principled way to generate somersault, rolling, and turning maneuvers in underwater vehicles.
Reading between the lines
- The resonance-tuning result suggests a control strategy for ray-like robots: adjust cable stiffness on the fly to match flapping frequency, which would make stride length robust to speed changes—an implicit design guideline in the paper.
- Because the model treats the fin as a network of struts and cables, it could be extended to map muscle-activation patterns to neural commands, a step the authors mention but do not develop.
- The out-of-phase result implies that asymmetric body motion can accelerate the kinematic wave; an untested corollary is that turning maneuvers could be executed not just by cutting one fin's drive but also by introducing phase offsets that induce roll.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper develops a body–fluid interaction model of a batoid ray propelled by tensegrity pectoral fins. The body trunk is treated as a rigid body with six degrees of freedom, and each pectoral fin is modeled by seven planar tensegrity radials composed of rigid struts and elastic cables, actuated by changing cable rest lengths. The equations of motion are derived via the Euler–Lagrange formalism using generalized coordinates for body position, orientation, and strut angles; the generalized forces from cables and from an analytical quasi-steady drag fluid model are incorporated through virtual work. The model is exercised in simulations that claim: (i) chord-wise and span-wise traveling waves emerge on the fin despite in-phase actuation; (ii) swim speed increases linearly with flapping frequency only when fin stiffness is tuned so that the fin's (dry) first-mode natural frequency matches the flapping frequency, suggesting that manta rays stiffen their fins to swim faster; (iii) body inertial motion, especially roll during out-of-phase flapping, can make the fin kinematic wave travel faster than the actuation wave; and (iv) maneuvers such as somersaults, rolling, and turning can be generated by asymmetric fin deformation.
Significance. If the qualitative trends are robust, the model provides a useful framework for studying batoid locomotion in the context of neural control and for designing tensegrity-based underwater vehicles. The paper has noteworthy strengths: a detailed multibody derivation, a clear virtual-work treatment of cable and fluid forces, and a demonstration that traveling waves and speed trends emerge from coupled dynamics rather than being prescribed by the actuation. However, the central biological conclusion about resonance exploitation rests on a fluid model that explicitly omits added-mass effects, and the headline linear relationship is based on three-point fits without uncertainty quantification. Because the main claims are load-bearing and currently depend on assumptions that are not tested, the manuscript requires substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted.
major comments (4)
- [Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A4] The resonance-exploitation claim is based on comparing flapping frequency with the fin's natural frequency computed from a single-fin model with 'no fluid force applied' (Sec. 3.2). However, the fluid model Eq. (A-22) contains only quasi-steady drag terms and states 'the inertial component of fluid force is ignored' (Appendix A4). Because the fin is neutrally buoyant (Sec. 2.1, A5), the added-mass inertia in water is of the same order as the fin's own inertia, so the wet natural frequency will be substantially lower than the dry value used in Fig. 3. The tuning condition in Fig. 3 is therefore not a genuine fluid–structure resonance, and the linear speed–frequency relationship in Fig. 3b may be an artifact of comparing against the wrong reference frequency. Please estimate the added-mass effect on natural frequency (e.g., by including a linear added-mass term in the fin model) and re-exa
- [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 3b] The claim that swim speed increases linearly with flapping frequency when resonance is exploited is based on exactly three data points per line (natural frequencies 0.46, 0.92, and 1.83 Hz), each from a single simulation with no error estimates. A straight line through three points is weak evidence for linearity and does not justify the strong statement that 'swim speed increases linearly with flapping frequency' or the conclusion that manta rays stiffen their fins. Additional intermediate frequencies and a residual analysis, or at least a statement about expected simulation variability, are needed.
- [Secs. 3.1, 3.3 and Eq. (A-22)] The traveling-wave observations—especially the claim in Sec. 3.3 that body roll makes the fin kinematic wave travel faster than the actuation wave—depend on the phase relationship between local fin velocity and fluid force. The quasi-steady drag law (A-22), with no added-mass or unsteady terms, cannot be assumed to reproduce the phase behavior of a real fluid. The authors do acknowledge in the Conclusion that the trends should be evaluated with CFD, but the main text states the qualitative results without this caveat. A sensitivity study varying the fluid model (e.g., adding an added-mass term or a linear unsteady correction) would help establish whether the phase and wave-speed conclusions are robust.
- [Sec. 3.2] The claim that stride length, fin flapping amplitude, and the energy-loss ratio are 'nearly independent' of fin stiffness when resonance is exploited is based on only three stiffness values and one selected damping ratio (0.05). The cable stiffnesses, actuation amplitude proportionality constants, and intersegmental phase lags are hand-tuned or taken from prior work, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Please report the actual numerical values used in Fig. 3a and provide sweeps over intermediate stiffnesses and damping ratios to justify the invariance claim.
minor comments (4)
- [Fig. 3 caption] The figure caption lists only blue, red, yellow, and purple lines, but the text in Sec. 3.2 refers to 'green lines' for propulsion efficiency. Add the missing color to the caption or correct the text.
- [References] Refs. [27] and [32] appear to be the same paper ('Tensegrity system dynamics in fluids', Nonlinear Dynamics 113, 12971–12984, 2025). Merge the duplicate citation.
- [Appendix A5 and Sec. 3.2] Appendix A5 states that the stiffness at the thickest place is set to 54 N/m 'so that the first mode natural frequency of the wing is around 1 Hz', while Sec. 3.2 reports first-mode natural frequencies of 0.92, 0.46, and 1.83 Hz. Clarify which stiffness values correspond to which natural frequency and how the 54 N/m baseline relates to the three cases.
- [Throughout] There are numerous typos and minor language issues (e.g., 'difficult' in the Abstract, 'momentum of inertial' in Appendix A2). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
Circularity Check
No circularity: traveling waves and resonance trends are emergent simulation outputs; the neglected added-mass term is a model limitation, not a circular step.
full rationale
The paper's central results are not equivalent to its inputs. The tensegrity dynamics in Sec. 2.2-2.3 are derived from Euler-Lagrange and virtual work, with actuation entering only as cable rest-length inputs. In Sec. 3.1, the traveling waves are reported as emergent even though 'all tensegrity units being actuated in the same phase,' so the spatial phase pattern is not prescribed. In Sec. 3.2, the natural frequencies are computed from a dry linearized fin model, 'with the fin root fixed to the inertial frame and no fluid force applied'; because the fluid model (A-22) explicitly states 'The inertial component of fluid force is ignored in this study,' the dry natural frequency is the correct resonance reference for the simulated model, and the amplitude/stride-length peaks at frequency ratio 1 are genuine dynamic outputs rather than fits. The linear swim-speed vs. flapping-frequency line in Fig. 3b is read off three simulated stiffness cases and is not imposed by any parameter fitted to manta data; the comparison to manta swimming [16] is external and qualitative. The paper's reliance on the authors' prior component models ([15,21,24,27]) provides the tensegrity topology and quasi-steady drag law, which are modeling assumptions, not the claimed predictions. The omitted added mass and borrowed drag coefficients weaken external biological validity, and the paper itself calls for CFD evaluation; this is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (6)
- Horizontal cable stiffness at thickest wing section =
54 N/m
- Normal drag coefficient cn =
1.18
- Tangential drag coefficient ct =
0.097
- Actuation amplitude proportionality constants =
1.5/max(wing thickness); 0.5/max(wing thickness) for maneuvers
- Cable damping ci =
tuned for first-mode damping ratio 0.05 or 0.2
- Intersegmental phase lag between radials =
12° (in-phase), 54° (out-of-phase)
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption Quasi-steady analytical fluid force model (A-22) with constant cn and ct and no added mass adequately represents fluid forces on body and fins.
- ad hoc to paper Cross-bridge cable forces are approximately balanced and each tensegrity radial bends only in its individual plane, so wing shape is fully captured by strut angles θ.
- domain assumption Body trunk is rigid with six degrees of freedom; the wing is neutrally buoyant with the same density as water.
- domain assumption Cables act only in tension, with force τ_i = -k_i max(Δl_i,0) + c_i dot(l_i) sign(max(Δl_i,0)).
- domain assumption Fluid forces act only at strut ends and the body-trunk mass center, discretizing the continuous surface forces.
- standard math Euler–Lagrange dynamics with potential energy V=0 and elastic cable forces treated as external generalized forces.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics modeling and analysis of batoid-type locomotion powered by tensegrity wing structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAU4SGXP
@misc{pith2026260720514,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Dynamics modeling and analysis of batoid-type locomotion powered by tensegrity wing structure},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAU4SGXP}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20514}
}
read the original abstract
Control signals and kinematics in batoid swimming are difficult to measure experimentally, making body-fluid interaction models essential for studying their underlying locomotion principles. To address this challenge, we developed a body-fluid interaction model of batoid-type swimming that is appropriate for both neural control study and engineering design. The body trunk is modeled as a rigid body with six degrees of freedom. The flexible pectoral fins attached to the trunk are modeled by a tensegrity structure consisting of rigid struts and elastic cables that resembles a biological musculoskeletal system. The fin is actuated by changing the tension of elastic cables distributed across the fin surface, enabling controllable and realistic deformation. Utilizing an analytical fluid force model, the body-fluid interaction model is exercised through simulation examples that respectively investigate the speed difference between tension actuation and fin kinematic waves, the effects of fin stiffness and resonance exploitation on swimming performance, and the different fin kinematics resulting from different body inertial motions.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Chen, J., Friesen, O. W. & Iwasaki, T. Mechanisms underlying rythmic locomotion: inter- actions between activation, tension and body curvature waves. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 211–219 (2012)
2012
-
[2]
Williams, T. L. et al. Locomotion in Lamprey and Trout: the Relative Timing of Activation and Movement. J. Exp. Biol. 143, 559–566. doi: 10.1242/jeb.143.1.559 (1989). 11
-
[3]
& Iwasaki, T
Kohannim, S. & Iwasaki, T. Analytical insights into optimality and resonance in fish swimming. J. R. Soc. Interface 1, 20131073 (2014)
2014
-
[4]
Schwalbe, M. A. B., Boden, A. L., Wise, T. N. & Tytell, E. D. Red muscle activity in bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus during forward accelerations. SciRep 9 (2018)
2018
-
[5]
Mchenry, M. J., Pell, C. A. & Long John H., J. Mechanical Control Of Swimming Speed: Stiffness And Axial Wave Form In Undulating Fish Models. J. Exp. Biol. 198, 2293–2305. doi:10.1242/jeb.198.11.2293 (Nov. 1995)
-
[6]
Long, J. H. & Nipper, J. S. The importance of body stiffness in undulatory propulsion. Amer. Zool. 36, 678–694 (1996)
1996
-
[7]
Long, J. H. Muscle, elastic energy, and the dynamics of body stiffness in swimming eels. Amer. Zool. 38, 771–792 (1998)
1998
-
[8]
Tytell, E. D. et al. Role of body stiffness in undulatory swimming: Insights from robotic and computational models. Phys. Rev. Fluids 1, 073202 (7 Nov. 2016)
2016
Show all 33 references
-
[9]
S., Triantafyllou, M
Triantafyllou, G. S., Triantafyllou, M. S. & Grosenbaugh, M. A. Optimal thrust development in oscillating foils with application to fish propulsion. J. Fluid. Struct 7, 205–224 (1993)
1993
-
[10]
D., Hsu, C.-Y., Williams, T
Tytell, E. D., Hsu, C.-Y., Williams, T. L., Cohen, A. H. & Fauci, L. J. Interactions between internal forces, body stiffness, and fluid environment in a neuromechanical model of lamprey swimming. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19832–19837. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011564107 (2010)
2010 doi
-
[11]
L., Fauci, L
Hamlet, C. L., Fauci, L. J. & Tytell, E. D. The effect of intrinsic muscular nonlinearities on the energetics of locomotion in a computational model of an anguilliform swimmer. J Theor. Biol. 385, 119–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.08.023 (2015)
2015 doi
-
[12]
& Friesen, W
Iwasaki, T., Chen, J. & Friesen, W. O. Biological clockwork underlying adaptive rhythmic movements. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 978–983 (2014)
2014
-
[13]
L., Hoffman, K
Hamlet, C. L., Hoffman, K. A., Tytell, E. D. & Fauci, L. J. The role of curvature feedback in the energetics and dynamics of lamprey swimming: A closed-loop model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006324. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006324 (2018)
2018 doi
-
[14]
Optimal Locomotion of Mechanical Rectifier Systems PhD thesis (University of Vir- ginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2011)
Blair, J. Optimal Locomotion of Mechanical Rectifier Systems PhD thesis (University of Vir- ginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2011)
2011
-
[15]
S., Blemker, S
Liu, X., Fish, F., Russo, R. S., Blemker, S. S. & Iwasaki, T. in Neuromechanical Modeling of Posture and Locomotion (eds Prilutsky, B. I. & Edwards, D. H.) 309–332 (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2016). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3267-2_11
2016 doi
-
[16]
Fish, F. E. et al. Hydrodynamic Performance of Aquatic Flapping: Efficiency of Underwater Flight in the Manta. Aerospace 3. doi:10.3390/aerospace3030020 (2016)
2016 doi
-
[17]
Menzer, A., Gong, Y., Fish, F. E. & Dong, H. Bio-Inspired Propulsion: Towards Understanding the Role of Pectoral Fin Kinematics in Manta-like Swimming. Biomimetics 7. doi:10.3390/ biomimetics7020045 (2022)
2022
-
[18]
Unsteady three-dimensional boundary element method for self-propelled bio- inspired locomotion
Moored, K. Unsteady three-dimensional boundary element method for self-propelled bio- inspired locomotion. Computers & Fluids 167, 324–340 (2018)
2018
-
[19]
& Dong, H
Liu, G., Ren, Y., Zhu, J., Bart-Smith, H. & Dong, H. Thrust Producing Mechanisms in Ray- inspired Underwater Vehicle Propulsion. Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5, 54–57 (2015)
2015
-
[20]
& Huang, W.-X
Zhang, D., Huang, Q.-G., Pan, G., Yang, L.-M. & Huang, W.-X. Vortex dynamics and hydro- dynamic performance enhancement mechanism in batoid fish oscillatory swimming. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 930, A28. doi: 10.1017/jfm.2021.917 (2022). 12
2021 doi
-
[21]
Flexible tensegrity wing design and insights in principles of swimming kinematics of batoid rays
Chen, J. Flexible tensegrity wing design and insights in principles of swimming kinematics of batoid rays. Bioinspir. Biomim. 16. doi:doi:10.1088/1748-3190/ac0fcd (2021)
2021 doi
-
[22]
& Bart-Smith, H
Moored, K., Kemp, T., Houle, N. & Bart-Smith, H. Analytical predictions, optimization, and design of a tensegrity-based artificial pectoral fin. International Journal of Solids and Structures 48, 3142–3159 (2011)
2011
-
[23]
& Bart-Smith, H
Bliss, T., Iwasaki, T. & Bart-Smith, H. Central Pattern Generator Control of a Tensegrity Swimmer. IEEE-ASME T. MECH. 18, 586–597. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2012.2210905 (2013)
2012
-
[24]
& Iwasaki, T
Blair, J. & Iwasaki, T. Optimal gaits for mechanical rectifier systems. IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr. 56, 59–71. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2051074 (2011)
2010
-
[25]
Chen, J., Friesen, W. O. & Iwasaki, T. Mechanisms underlying rhythmic locomotion: body– fluid interaction in undulatory swimming. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 561–574. doi: 10 . 1242 / jeb . 048751 (2011)
2011
-
[26]
Cheong, J., Skelton, R. E. & Cho, Y. A numerical algorithm for tensegrity dynamics with non-minimal coordinates. Mechanics Research Communications 58, 46–52. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2014.01.008 (2014)
2014 doi
-
[28]
Taylor, G. I. Analysis of the swimming of long and narrow animals. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat. 214, 158–183 (1952)
1952
-
[29]
S., Triantafyllou, G
Gopalkrishnan, R., Triantafyllou, M. S., Triantafyllou, G. S. & Barrett, D. Active vortic- ity control in a shear flow using a flapping foil. J. Fluid Mech. 274, 1–21. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0022112094002016 (1994)
1994
-
[30]
M., Streitlien, K., Barrett, D
Anderson, J. M., Streitlien, K., Barrett, D. S. & Triantafyllou, M. S. Oscillating foils of high propulsive efficiency. J. Fluid Mech. 360, 41–72. doi: 10.1017/S0022112097008392 (1998)
1998 doi
-
[31]
& Iwasaki, T
Futakata, Y. & Iwasaki, T. in Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference 2010 1831–1836 (IEEE, Taipei, Taiwan, 2010)
2010
-
[32]
& Skelton, R
Chen, J., Chen, M., Majji, M. & Skelton, R. Tensegrity system dynamics in fluids. Nonlinear Dyn 113, 12971–12984. doi: 10.1007/s11071-025-11096-1 (2025). Appendix A1 General equation of motion of multiple rigid body system The total kinetic energy of a system of n rigid bodies...
2025 doi
-
[33]
− 2(CθL⊺My −SθSζL⊺Mz )(ω2ω3) − 2(CθL⊺Mx −SθCζL⊺Mz )(ω1ω3) − 2SθSζL⊺My (ω2 1 +ω2 3) + 2Sθ(SζL⊺Mx +CζL⊺My )(ω1ω2) − 2SθCζL⊺Mx (ω2 2 +ω2
-
[34]
LN 0 · · · 0 , Li =I2 ⊗ Lio, Lio = ℓ1 0 · · · 0 ℓ1 ℓ2
(A-17) 18 A3 Evaluation of ∂l(θ)/∂θ Similarly to the mass center of the struts and body trunk, the coordinates of strut ends and the mass center of body trunk in body frame, gb(θ), are given by gb(θ) = xg ⊗e1 +yg ⊗e2 +zg ⊗e3, (A-18) where xg = LCζ cosθ +x0, y g = LSζ cosθ +y0,...
Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.