Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Design of Trimmed Helicoid Soft-Rigid Hybrid Robots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-form beam model predicts the axial stiffness of any trimmed helicoid from geometry and material alone, replacing FEM-based design.

desk verdict A useful design-and-manufacturing paper whose headline axial stiffness model is plausible but under-derived; deserves peer review with requests to tighten eq. (9) and broaden validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03380 v1 pith:6GHVIXKI submitted 2025-06-03 cs.RO

Zach J. Patterson , Emily R. Sologuren , Daniela Rus This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords trimmedhelicoidsoft-rigidhybridrobotclosed-formstiffnessmodelEuler-Bernoullibeaminjectionmoldingarchitecturedmaterialstendon-drivenmanipulatorsoftrobotics
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

This paper combines two soft-robotics design ideas—architectured trimmed-helicoid springs that deform through geometry rather than material alone, and soft-rigid hybrid robots that interleave compliant segments with rigid plates. Its central claim is that the compressive stiffness of any trimmed helicoid can be predicted analytically, with no finite-element analysis and no free parameters, by treating each helical strut as an Euler-Bernoulli beam and evaluating strut length and angle at the strut's center radius. That closed-form model, together with a semi-empirical bending model, gives direct equations for how height, diameter, strut width, thickness, and helix count set structural stiffness. The paper also contributes an injection-molding pipeline built on 3D-printed molds, an open-source design tool, and a proof-of-concept three-module robot that lifts a 400 g mug.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trimmed helicoid—interlocking helical struts with a cylindrical cut down the radial center—modeled as a set of Euler-Bernoulli beams. The load-bearing idealization is that each strut is a straight, statically indeterminate beam fixed at one end and free to translate but not rotate at the other; symmetry gives the reaction moment $M = (1/2)FL\cos\alpha$, and superposition of a cantilever point load and a constant-moment cantilever yields $y = FL^3\cos^2\alpha/(12EI)$. Replacing nominal length and angle with center-radius values $L_{avg}$ and $\alpha_{avg}$ produces the closed-form stiffness. The same geometry drives the parametric mold-generation tool, and the Shore A hardness-modulus relation converts durometer hardness into $E$.

What would settle it

Fabricate a set of trimmed helicoids that push the straight-beam idealization—for example very wide struts, short segments, or low helix counts—and compare measured axial force-displacement slopes with $k_{ax} = 12EI/(L_{avg}^3\cos^2\alpha_{avg})$; systematic deviation growing with strut curvature would falsify the idealization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives the closed-form axial stiffness $k_{ax} = 12EI/(L_{avg}^3 \cos^2\alpha_{avg})$ for an arbitrary trimmed helicoid, with $E$ estimated from Shore A hardness via a standard hardness-modulus relation, $I = wt^3/12$ the strut's second moment of area, and $L_{avg}$, $\alpha_{avg}$ the strut length and helical angle evaluated at the center radius $r=(D-w)/2$. The derivation idealizes each helical strut as a statically indeterminate beam fixed at one end and free to translate but not rotate at the other, then applies textbook cantilever-beam solutions. The prediction matches FEM to within a few percent and matches experiments on two module designs with 1 to 20 percent error. For bending, the paper offers a semi-empirical model $k_{bend} = 9k_{ax} I R_m/(A H)$ inspired by the wave-spring design equation. These models feed an open-source parametric design tool that generates injection molds, and a three-module tendon-driven robot built this way runs under closed-loop control.

Load-bearing premise

The stiffness formula rests on treating each curved, three-dimensionally connected helical strut as a straight beam fixed at one end and free to slide but not rotate at the other, with length and angle read at the strut's center radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can pick height, diameter, strut width, thickness, and helix count to hit a target axial stiffness directly from the closed-form formula, eliminating the FEM analysis loop used in prior trimmed-helicoid work.
  • Because axial stiffness scales as $1/(L_{avg}^3 \cos^2\alpha_{avg})$, small changes in segment height or helical angle dominate tuning, which is useful for modular robots.
  • The injection-molding workflow, with one mold-cavity part per helix interface, allows industrial liquid silicone rubbers and mass production while keeping the 3D-printed-mold speed of lab prototyping.
  • Rigid plates between helicoid segments make the same structure behave as a soft continuum or as discrete rigid linkages, and the demonstrated 400 g lift (63% of manipulator mass) shows the design does not force a simple compliance-versus-payload tradeoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the closed-form formula contains only geometry and material constants, it could be inverted to solve for geometry from a desired stiffness; the paper does not pursue this inversion.
  • The same beam idealization might extend to shear, torsion, and dynamic stiffness for the regular lattice, but those models are not derived here.
  • The $1/12$ factor and $\cos^2\alpha$ dependence are sensitive to the boundary-condition idealization; testing high-curvature or very wide struts would reveal whether the straight-beam simplification is systematic or only works near the two tested geometries.
  • Because the helicoid lattice is regular, sparse embedded sensing could plausibly reconstruct the robot's shape far better than the cable-length state estimation used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a design and manufacturing pipeline for soft-rigid hybrid robots built from trimmed helicoid (TH) segments. The main analytical contribution is a closed-form model for axial stiffness, k_ax = 12EI/(L_avg^3 cos^2 α_avg) (Eq. 12), derived by idealizing each helical strut as a straight fixed-guided Euler-Bernoulli beam. A semi-empirical bending stiffness model (Eq. 16) is also proposed, using an empirically fitted factor. The authors validate the models against FEM and experiments on two module designs, introduce an injection-molding manufacturing method with an open-source parametric CAD mold generator, and demonstrate a three-module cable-driven robot lifting a 400 g mug. The central claim is that the axial stiffness model is parameter-free and applicable to arbitrary TH geometries, replacing FEM-based design workflows.

Significance. If the axial model is correct, it provides a genuinely useful design heuristic: engineers can estimate compressive stiffness directly from geometry and material properties without per-design FEM. The manufacturing contribution—3D-printed molds for injection molding of industrial silicones—is practical and timely, and the open-source CAD tool lowers the barrier to adoption. The experimental agreement within 20% for two designs is encouraging, and the manuscript is clearly written. However, the load-bearing 'arbitrary geometries' claim is currently supported by a derivation with unstated geometric identities and only sparse validation, so the significance of the modeling contribution is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II-A.1, Eq. (9)] The strut length formula L_avg ≈ (1/(2N_h))√(H² + [π(D−w)−2t]²) is asserted without derivation or reference. The centerline of a helical ribbon at radius (D−w)/2 would have a different length, roughly (1/N_h)√(H² + [π(D−w)]²), and the origin of the factor 1/2 and the −2t term is not explained. Since k_ax ∝ L_avg^{-3}, an undetected factor-of-two error in this normalization would change the predicted stiffness by 8×. The paper should derive Eq. (9) from the helix geometry or validate it independently against FEM and experiments over a range of parameters.
  2. [§II-A.1, N_h cancellation argument] The text states that the load is distributed over N_h parallel sets of N_h series springs, so N_h cancels in Eq. (12). This bookkeeping requires that a helix contains exactly N_h series struts over the segment height H; no evidence or geometric argument is given for this count. Moreover, in the two test geometries, the vertical projection of L_avg does not obviously sum to H, which would be necessary for the series-spring count to be consistent. Please provide a derivation of the network topology and verify that the projection of strut lengths sums correctly.
  3. [§II-A.2, Eq. (16)] The bending stiffness model is explicitly semi-empirical: the factor 9 R_m/H is introduced because the analytic form in Eq. (15) 'did not result in a good fit'. This fitted constant undermines the claim of closed-form design equations for arbitrary geometries in bending, and no independent validation of this factor is offered outside the two tested geometries. The paper should either derive the factor from a credible mechanics model (e.g., curved-beam or wave-spring theory) or clearly scope the bending model to the tested parameter range, and it should state the fitted constant as a limitation in the abstract or conclusions.
  4. [§IV, Table I and Fig. 3] The experimental validation covers only two module designs, one with a single sample, and the FEM comparison in Fig. 3 is presented graphically with no numerical error metrics. The reported percent error range of 1–20% for the analytical model is respectable, but the 'arbitrary geometries' claim cannot be established from two designs, especially when the FEM sweep in Fig. 3 lacks quantitative agreement measures. Please add numerical errors for all FEM points in Fig. 3 and, ideally, validate the axial model on at least one additional geometry outside the fitted range (e.g., different N_h or w).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II-A, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) defines the nominal strut length L without derivation; like Eq. (9), it should be derived from helix geometry or cited, as it feeds into the strain estimate in Eq. (3).
  2. [§II-A, text after Eq. (3)] The phrase 'vertical access of a cross section' should read 'vertical axis of a cross section'; check for similar typos elsewhere.
  3. [§II-A.2, Eq. (13)] The notation k_ax is reused for the axial stiffness of a rigid bar (EA/H), which is confusing given that k_ax was already defined in Eq. (12) for the helicoid; please use a different symbol, such as k_bar.
  4. [§IV, Fig. 3] Panels (a)–(d) show only a single curve for FEM and the analytical model without error bars or data points; adding symbols and a legend with percent error would make the comparison quantitatively interpretable.
  5. [§III, mold description] The sentence 'Our mold consists of 6 + N_h parts' is ambiguous about whether the number includes the sprue, clamps, and vents; clarifying the part list would help readers reproduce the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Axial stiffness derivation is algebraically self-contained; bending model is explicitly semi-empirical rather than a hidden fit.

full rationale

The central axial-stiffness derivation is self-contained. Equations (5)-(12) are a fixed-guided Euler-Bernoulli beam calculation in which the geometric inputs (L_avg, alpha_avg, and I) are defined, not fitted, and k_ax = 12EI/(L_avg^3 cos^2 alpha_avg) follows algebraically from the deflection solution. Equation (9) is a geometric approximation, but an unverified approximation is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The only fitted element is the factor 9 in the bending relation, Eq. (16), which the paper explicitly introduces as a semi-empirical adjustment: “We found that this particular equation did not result in a good fit, but taking inspiration from the Smalley equation for wave springs [23], we found the following empirical adjustment resulted in a good fit.” The Discussion also openly states that the bending model is semi-empirical and asks whether a first-principles bending model can be derived. Because the paper does not present the bending stiffness as a first-principles prediction, this is disclosed calibration rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations appear in introductory or control context and are not load-bearing for the stiffness model. The thin two-geometry experimental validation and the straight-beam idealization (Section VI: “models may benefit from introducing additional considerations, such as modeling the beams as curved”) are accuracy and generality concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on textbook beam theory, a linear material assumption backed by a small-strain argument, and two ad hoc modeling choices (the guided-end boundary condition and the mid-strut averaging radius). The bending stiffness model additionally uses an empirically fitted prefactor. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Empirical factor in bending stiffness model (9 R_m/H) = 9 (dimensionless prefactor)
    In eq. (16), the bending stiffness is taken as 9 k_ax I/A * R_m/H. The authors state eq. (15), the purely analytic form, did not fit, and they introduced this factor inspired by the Smalley wave spring equation to obtain a good fit. This is a fitted constant, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Euler-Bernoulli beam theory applies to each helical strut at small strain.
    Section II-A: the paper models each strut as a beam and assumes small strain (<5%) to justify EB theory.
  • domain assumption Silicone behaves as a linear elastic material with Young's modulus estimated from Shore A hardness via the Gent model.
    Section II-A, eq. (4): the paper assumes a linear material model and computes E from Shore A using the Gent model, an empirical conversion.
  • ad hoc to paper Each strut is a statically indeterminate beam fixed at one end and free to translate but not rotate at the other.
    Section II-A and Fig. 2: this boundary condition leads to the reaction moment M = F L cos(alpha)/2 and the 1/12 factor in deflection. It is an idealization of the strut's connection to neighboring helices.
  • ad hoc to paper Helical struts can be approximated as straight beams because they are short relative to the circumference.
    Section II-A: 'we approximate the beams as straight given that they are typically short relative to the circumference of the bulk structure.' This neglects curvature effects.
  • ad hoc to paper The representative strut length and helix angle are evaluated at the center of each strut, r = (D-w)/2.
    Section II-A, eqs. (9)-(10): the paper replaces the nominal L and alpha with average values at the strut center to capture the compression loading across the strut surface. This choice is not derived but justified by the loading argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design of Trimmed Helicoid Soft-Rigid Hybrid Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6GHVIXKI

@misc{pith2026250603380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design of Trimmed Helicoid Soft-Rigid Hybrid Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6GHVIXKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03380}
}
read the original abstract

As soft robot design matures, researchers have converged to sophisticated design paradigms to enable the development of more suitable platforms. Two such paradigms are soft-rigid hybrid robots, which utilize rigid structural materials in some aspect of the robot's design, and architectured materials, which deform based on geometric parameters as opposed to purely material ones. In this work, we combine the two design approaches, utilizing trimmed helicoid structures in series with rigid linkages. Additionally, we extend the literature on wave spring-inspired soft structures by deriving a mechanical model of the stiffness for arbitrary geometries. We present a novel manufacturing method for such structures utilizing an injection molding approach and we make available the design tool to generate 3D printed molds for arbitrary designs of this class. Finally, we produce a robot using the above methods and operate it in closed-loop demonstrations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Soft-Rigid Helicoid Arm. For scale, the robot is approximately 0.45 meters from base to tip. (A) Rotating base. (B) One module is composed of two helical segments. (C) Rigid plate that connects two segments together. (D) Each module (two helicoid segments) are controlled by three cables highlighted in orange. independently of material properties. Additionally, within a robotic structure, because of the high volume t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left Top: Important geometric parameters of the trimmed helicoid. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2) Bending Stiffness: For our bending analysis, we use a rough approximation by first assuming that our helicoid is a rigid bar in tension and finding a stiffness of kax = EA H , (13) where A = π 4 (2R − w) 2 = πR2 m. For a solid bending beam kbend = EI H , (14) where I = π 4 R4 m. Thus, solving for E, we can write kbend = kaxI A . (15) We found that this particular equation did not result in a good fit, but taking … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of analytical model with FEM. a) Number of helices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exploded view of the mold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example plots of characterization experiments for compression and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time lapse of a robot experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robot lifting a 400 gram mug. For scale, at full extension the robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design, fabrication and control of soft robots,

    D. Rus and M. T. Tolley, “Design, fabrication and control of soft robots,”Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 467–475, May 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Hard questions for soft robotics,

    E. W. Hawkes, C. Majidi, and M. T. Tolley, “Hard questions for soft robotics,”Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 53, p. eabg6049, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Vision-controlled jetting for composite systems and robots,

    T. J. K. Buchner, S. Rogler, S. Weirich, Y . Armati, B. G. Cangan, J. Ramos, S. T. Twiddy, D. M. Marini, A. Weber, D. Chen, G. Ellson, J. Jacob, W. Zengerle, D. Katalichenko, C. Keny, W. Matusik, and R. K. Katzschmann, “Vision-controlled jetting for composite systems and robots,”Nature, vol. 623, no. 7987, pp. 522–530, Nov. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Sim- ulation and Fabrication of Soft Robots with Embedded Skeletons,

    J. M. Bern, F. Zargarbashi, A. Zhang, J. Hughes, and D. Rus, “Sim- ulation and Fabrication of Soft Robots with Embedded Skeletons,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2022, pp. 5205–5211

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A Soft-Rigid Hybrid Gripper With Lateral Compliance and Dexterous In-Hand Manipulation,

    W. Zhu, C. Lu, Q. Zheng, Z. Fang, H. Che, K. Tang, M. Zhu, S. Liu, and Z. Wang, “A Soft-Rigid Hybrid Gripper With Lateral Compliance and Dexterous In-Hand Manipulation,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 104–115, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Geometric Confined Pneumatic Soft–Rigid Hybrid Actuators,

    J. Zhang, T. Wang, J. Wang, M. Y . Wang, B. Li, J. X. Zhang, and J. Hong, “Geometric Confined Pneumatic Soft–Rigid Hybrid Actuators,”Soft Robotics, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 574–582, Oct. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Planning of Soft-Rigid Hybrid Arms in Contact With Compliant Environment: Application to the Transrectal Biopsy of the Prostate,

    E. Coevoet, Y . Adagolodjo, M. Lin, C. Duriez, and F. Ficuciello, “Planning of Soft-Rigid Hybrid Arms in Contact With Compliant Environment: Application to the Transrectal Biopsy of the Prostate,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4853–4860, Apr. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    SoRoSim: A MATLAB Toolbox for Hybrid Rigid–Soft Robots Based on the Geometric Variable-Strain Approach,

    A. T. Mathew, I. B. Hmida, C. Armanini, F. Boyer, and F. Renda, “SoRoSim: A MATLAB Toolbox for Hybrid Rigid–Soft Robots Based on the Geometric Variable-Strain Approach,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 106–122, Sep. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Design and Control of Modular Soft-Rigid Hybrid Manipulators with Self- Contact,

    Z. J. Patterson, E. Sologuren, C. D. Santina, and D. Rus, “Design and Control of Modular Soft-Rigid Hybrid Manipulators with Self- Contact,” Aug. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Mechanical metamaterials at the theoretical limit of isotropic elastic stiffness,

    J. B. Berger, H. N. G. Wadley, and R. M. McMeeking, “Mechanical metamaterials at the theoretical limit of isotropic elastic stiffness,” Nature, vol. 543, no. 7646, pp. 533–537, Mar. 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Responsive materials architected in space and time,

    X. Xia, C. M. Spadaccini, and J. R. Greer, “Responsive materials architected in space and time,”Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 683–701, Sep. 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Architectured materials in engineering and biology: Fabrication, structure, mechanics and performance,

    F. Barthelat, “Architectured materials in engineering and biology: Fabrication, structure, mechanics and performance,”International Ma- terials Reviews, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 413–430, Nov. 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Trimmed helicoids: An architectured soft structure yielding soft robots with high precision, large workspace, and compliant interactions,

    Q. Guan, F. Stella, C. Della Santina, J. Leng, and J. Hughes, “Trimmed helicoids: An architectured soft structure yielding soft robots with high precision, large workspace, and compliant interactions,”npj Robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Oct. 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Design, Analysis, and Real-Time Simulation of a 3D Soft Robotic Snake,

    Z. Wan, Y . Sun, Y . Qin, E. H. Skorina, R. Gasoto, M. Luo, J. Fu, and C. D. Onal, “Design, Analysis, and Real-Time Simulation of a 3D Soft Robotic Snake,”Soft Robotics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 258–268, Apr. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Soft Hybrid Wave Spring Actuators,

    E. H. Skorina and C. D. Onal, “Soft Hybrid Wave Spring Actuators,” Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1900097, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Towards a Highly Integrated 3D Printed Soft Continuum Manipulator,

    J. M. Salgueiro and J. C. Reis, “Towards a Highly Integrated 3D Printed Soft Continuum Manipulator,” in2021 7th International Con- ference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), Feb. 2021, pp. 163–167

    2021

  9. [17]

    Design and Characterization of a 3D printed Wave Spring for use in a Flexible Robotic Arm,

    C. H. Gunarathna, A. D. Ranasinghe, N. A. Piyumal, A. L. Kulasekera, and N. D. Jayaweera, “Design and Characterization of a 3D printed Wave Spring for use in a Flexible Robotic Arm,” in2022 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Jul. 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  10. [18]

    3D printing of soft robotic systems,

    T. J. Wallin, J. Pikul, and R. F. Shepherd, “3D printing of soft robotic systems,”Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 84–100, Jun. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    3D Printing Materials for Soft Robotics,

    E. Sachyani Keneth, A. Kamyshny, M. Totaro, L. Beccai, and S. Mag- dassi, “3D Printing Materials for Soft Robotics,”Advanced Materials, vol. 33, no. 19, p. 2003387, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    On the Relation between Indentation Hardness and Young’s Modulus,

    A. N. Gent, “On the Relation between Indentation Hardness and Young’s Modulus,”Rubber Chemistry and Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 896–906, Sep. 1958

    1958

  13. [21]

    Can you estimate modulus from durometer hardness for silicones? Yes, but only roughly. . . and you must choose your modulus carefully,

    K. Larson, “Can you estimate modulus from durometer hardness for silicones? Yes, but only roughly. . . and you must choose your modulus carefully,”White paper , Dow Chemical Company, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    R. G. Budynas, J. K. Nisbettet al.,Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill New York, 2011, vol. 9

    2011

  15. [23]

    Smalley Steel Ring Company, 2014

    Smalley,Designing with Wave Springs. Smalley Steel Ring Company, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Injection Molding of Soft Robots,

    M. A. Bell, K. P. Becker, and R. J. Wood, “Injection Molding of Soft Robots,”Advanced Materials Technologies, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 2100605, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    On an Improved State Parametrization for Soft Robots With Piecewise Constant Curvature and Its Use in Model Based Control,

    C. Della Santina, A. Bicchi, and D. Rus, “On an Improved State Parametrization for Soft Robots With Piecewise Constant Curvature and Its Use in Model Based Control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1001–1008, Apr. 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    W. C. Young, R. G. Budynas, A. M. Sadeghet al.,Roark’s F ormulas for Stress and Strain. McGraw-hill New York, 2002, vol. 7

    2002

  19. [27]

    Model-Based Control of Soft Robots: A Survey of the State of the Art and Open Challenges,

    C. Della Santina, C. Duriez, and D. Rus, “Model-Based Control of Soft Robots: A Survey of the State of the Art and Open Challenges,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 30–65, Jun. 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.