Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

ARCSnake V2: Mechanical Adaptations For An Amphibious Multi-Domain Screw-Propelled Snake-Like Robot

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ARCSnake V2 is a screw-propelled snake robot that uses internal air pressure and inflatable bladders to move across land, sand, and underwater environments.

desk verdict Real amphibious screw-snake with a plausible core idea, but the validation is sloppy and overclaimed—worth reviewing with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.11970 v2 pith:CYB7HZR7 submitted 2025-11-15 cs.RO

Sara Wickenhiser , Lizzie Peiros , Calvin Joyce , Peter Gavrilov , Sujaan Mukherjee , Syler Sylvester , Junrong Zhou , Mandy Cheung
show 3 more authors
Jason Lim Florian Richter Michael C. Yip
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords snakerobotArchimedeanscrewpropulsionamphibiouslocomotionbuoyancycontrolpositivepressurewaterproofinggranularmediaunderwaterroboticshyper-redundant
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 claims that a snake-shaped robot with Archimedean screw propulsion can be made amphibious by sealing each segment with positive internal air pressure and adding torus-shaped inflatable bladders for buoyancy control. The central design idea is that 4-6 psi internal pressure makes every seal and cable penetrator leak air outward rather than admit water, while bladders held at about 0.15 bar shift segment buoyancy roughly 5% above and below neutral, letting the robot sink, float, and swim. Experiments reported in a 1.5-m tank show dives and ascents, underwater grasping with a head-mounted claw, CAN-bus round-trip latencies from 0.73 ms base to 8.92 ms at the farthest node, screw-drive efficiency near 65.7%, and U-joint hysteresis of 2-6 degrees under load. The authors conclude this yields a single tether-powered platform that can transit from hard ground to granular media to water without reconfiguration, with applications in inspection, sample collection, and search and rescue.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the water-sealed modular segment: a screw shell rotated by a motor through a belt and planetary-gear transmission (7:1 reduction), with all power, CAN, and air lines passing through waterproof penetrators and a positive-pressure line feeding each segment at 4-6 psi so seals weep air rather than ingest water. The second load-bearing object is the torus-shaped inflatable bladder, sized from the torus volume formula and manufactured from coated nylon taffeta; each bladder provides roughly 13.8 N of buoyancy and is inflated via independent front/rear pneumatic branches at 3-6 psi, enabling plus or minus 5% buoyancy shifts and tilt control. These two mechanisms, plus cabl

What would settle it

Submerge a fully pressurized segment in a tank at its rated depth with the air supply shut off and monitor internal pressure and humidity for several hours; visible pressure decay or moisture inside would refute the waterproofing claim. Alternatively, inflate a bladder to 0.15 bar and hold it for an hour; any measurable volume loss would invalidate the measured 68-70 second inflation-to-surfacing timeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ARCSnake V2's core discovery is that a modular, serially linked screw-propelled snake can be made waterproof and buoyancy-controllable without heavy pressure housings. Each segment's rotating screw shell is driven through a 7:1 gear reduction and sealed with waterproof cable feedthroughs; a common positive-pressure line supplies 4-6 psi to all segments, so any microscopic gap releases air instead of taking in water. Torus-shaped textile bladders wrapped around each U-joint provide the active buoyancy: each bladder is sized to displace about 0.00143 cubic meters (roughly 13.8 N) so that inflating or deflating front and rear bladders independently shifts the whole snake from -5% to +5% around

Load-bearing premise

The critical premise is that maintaining roughly 4-6 psi of positive internal pressure in every segment keeps water out through all seals and cable penetrators, and that the textile bladders stay airtight at around 0.15 bar; a leak in either would defeat the underwater and buoyancy claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single tether-powered robot can transit from land into water and back without reconfiguration, because screw blades grip sand, mud, and water alike.
  • Positive internal pressure turns every seal and cable penetrator into an air-leak-out barrier, so waterproofing no longer requires heavy pressure housings and segment weight stays low enough to be buoyancy-managed.
  • Independent front and rear bladder inflation gives depth and pitch control, allowing the robot to sink to a riverbed, grasp a sample, and rise to the surface.
  • Modular segments with CAN-bus daisy chaining (0.73 ms base latency, about 0.91 ms per node) support scaling to longer snakes for pipe inspection and search-and-rescue.
  • The screw drive's peak tangential force of 40-75.9 N at commanded speeds of 10-50 rad/s, with about 65.7% drive-train efficiency, bounds the robot's ability to cross loose ground and soft sediment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If positive-pressure waterproofing holds over long missions, this approach could generalize to other modular underwater robots, since it avoids potting and pressure vessels; a natural test is a sustained soak with the air supply off.
  • The 65.7% screw-drive efficiency at 50 rad/s suggests an upper bound for power budgeting in future versions, though the paper does not report a full energy model.
  • The buoyancy system's 68-70 second inflation time at 2.9 psia sets a practical lower bound for depth-change maneuvers; faster surfacing would require larger bladders or higher regulator pressure.
  • The head gripper's underwater sample retrieval implies a path toward intervention tasks, but grasping robustness in currents is not characterized and would be a natural follow-up.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents ARCSnake V2, a modular snake-like robot that combines Archimedean screw propulsion, active U-joints, water-sealed segment housings, and inflatable buoyancy bladders. The authors claim that the platform achieves multi-domain locomotion over land, granular media, and underwater environments, with key contributions including a water-sealed mechanical design, an integrated buoyancy control system, and teleoperation. Experiments reported include CAN-bus latency, screw-drive torque, U-joint hysteresis, and a tank-based sink/rise demonstration plus an underwater sample-grasping trial. The central assertion is that ARCSnake V2 is a 'fully waterproof' amphibious system suitable for exploration, search-and-rescue, and environmental monitoring.

Significance. If the waterproofing and buoyancy claims are substantiated, this is a useful platform-level contribution: the robot integrates hyper-redundant snake articulation, screw propulsion, and active buoyancy control in a single modular system. The paper provides some concrete measured quantities (0.73 ms base CAN latency plus 0.91 ms per node, screw output torque 3.60–6.83 Nm, hysteresis widths of 2°–6° under load, and sink/rise accelerations) and shows a working physical demonstrator with underwater gripping. However, the aquatic validation is thin: the only immersion evidence is a short sink/rise in a 1.5 m tank and a single sample grab, with no standardized leak, immersion-duration, or pressure-hold test. Arithmetic and unit inconsistencies in the buoyancy and pressure tables further weaken the central 'fully waterproof' claim. The platform concept is plausible and worth reporting, but the current evidence does not yet support the IP67 / fully-waterproof assertion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table II and §III.B.1] The buoyancy entry for the 'Front Segment + Head' is internally inconsistent. With mass 5.006 kg + 1.009 kg = 6.015 kg and volume 0.004 m^3, Archimedes' principle gives F_b = 1000·9.81·0.004 = 39.2 N and weight = 6.015·9.81 = 59.0 N, so the net buoyancy is approximately −19.8 N, not the −39.2 N listed. The tabulated density 1251.5 kg/m^3 also uses only 5.006 kg, omitting the added 1.009 kg. This error propagates into the buoyancy budget and bladder sizing, so it must be corrected and the calculations redone.
  2. [§I, Table I, §III.A.3, §IV.C] The claim that each segment is 'rigorously tested providing the equivalent to IP67 rating' is not supported by any described test. An IP67 rating requires immersion at 1 m for 30 minutes (and dust protection), but the only aqueous tests are a short sink/rise in a 1.5 m tank and a single grasping trial. No leak test, pressure-hold test, immersion-duration test, or depth rating is reported. The positive-pressure argument in §III.A.3 (4–6 psi) is also depth-limited: 4 psi gauge corresponds to roughly 2.8 m of hydrostatic head, and 6 psi to roughly 4.2 m. Please provide the actual IP67 or equivalent test protocol and results, or weaken the claim to a more precise depth/duration rating.
  3. [§III.B.5 and Table I] The pressure units in the bladder system are incorrect or ambiguous. The text states the bladders settle at '0.15 Bar (2.15 psia)' and that a 'minimum upstream pressure of 2.9 psia' is required, while Table I lists 'Bladders 3–5 psig, 3 psia.' Values of 2.15 psia and 2.9 psia are below atmospheric pressure and cannot inflate a bladder at atmospheric pressure; 0.15 bar is 2.18 psi, but whether this is gauge or absolute is not stated. If the intended values are gauge pressures, they should be written as psig or bar(g). This is a load-bearing issue because the entire inflation and head-loss analysis depends on the actual pressure differential.
  4. [§IV.C.3] The sinking data are internally inconsistent. The paper reports an average descent acceleration of 0.045 m/s^2, but also states the robot took approximately 10 s to sink 1.5 m. Under constant acceleration from rest, 1.5 m in 10 s corresponds to a = 0.03 m/s^2, whereas a = 0.045 m/s^2 would reach the bottom in about 8.2 s. Please reconcile the acceleration measurement with the reported sink time, and report the actual depth-time trace rather than a single average value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B and Table I] The measured peak screw-shell torque (6.83 Nm at 50 rad/s) exceeds the Table I 'Screw Torque' peak of 3.8 Nm. Please clarify whether the Table I value refers to the motor or to the screw-shell output, and specify the operating condition. Also, 'maximum torque output of the motor with no load' is not a well-defined quantity; presumably rated torque or stall torque is intended.
  2. [§III.B.4] Minor typos: 'torus' is spelled 'tarus' in several places, and 'V olume' appears in the text near Eq. (2).
  3. [Fig. 5 and §IV] The land locomotion claim is illustrated qualitatively on grass, concrete, mulch, and gravel, but no quantitative locomotion data (speed, traversal success, slip) are reported for these media. Adding a short table of measured performance would strengthen the multi-domain claim.
  4. [§IV.D and Fig. 9] The U-joint hysteresis test reports widths of ~2°, ~4°, and ~6° under increasing load. It would be helpful to state the number of cycles and whether the hysteresis loop is due to backlash, cable stretch, or friction, since this affects the interpretation of joint repeatability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: buoyancy and bladder sizing are derived from measured quantities and standard physics; self-citations are lineage, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Buoyancy calculations (Eq. 1) use Archimedes' principle with measured mass and water-displacement volumes (Table II, Section IV.C.1) to determine the required bladder volume; the torus volume formula (Eq. 2) and textile flat-pattern relation (Eq. 3) are standard geometry applied to a chosen design target (5% above/below neutral). The bladder pressure and inflation-time analysis use a textbook head-loss equation (Eq. 4) and are validated against an experimental fill-time measurement, not against a fitted prediction. No parameter is fitted to the outcome and then renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to prior ARCSnake papers ([6], [7], [45], [52]) are used only to establish lineage and screw-propulsion background; the new underwater claims (waterproofing, buoyancy, U-joint repeatability, underwater grasping) are supported by the present experiments and do not reduce to those citations. The IP67 assertion is not supported by a described standardized test, and the positive-pressure waterproofing rationale is an engineering assumption rather than a derived result, but that is an evidence/completeness concern, not circularity. No step in the paper equates its inputs with its outputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard buoyancy mechanics and on several unverified engineering assumptions: seal behavior under positive pressure, bladder integrity, and foam shells staying dry. The listed values are design targets chosen by hand rather than fitted parameters, but they directly control the claimed dive/surface behavior.

free parameters (4)
  • Buoyancy margins ±5% of neutral = -5% passive, +5% active
    Design target chosen by hand in Section III.B; no principle or data justifies 5% over other margins, yet it defines whether segments sink or float.
  • Bladder operating pressure = 0.15 Bar (2.15 psia)
    Chosen as safe operating pressure for nylon-taffeta bladders (Section III.B.5); no burst or leak test data are reported.
  • Target bladder inflation time = 60 s
    Design requirement used to size upstream pressure; measured inflation took 68-70 s (13.3% error).
  • Internal positive pressure = 4-6 psi (line at 6 psi)
    Operating setting for waterproofing via outward air flow; not derived from a leak model and not validated by a standardized immersion test.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Archimedes' principle (Eq. 1) governs buoyancy of segments and bladders
    Used throughout Section III.B; standard physics.
  • domain assumption Water density is 1000 kg/m^3 and remains constant in the test tank
    Used in Table II calculations.
  • domain assumption Positive internal pressure causes air to escape through any cracks rather than allowing water to enter
    Section III.A.3; load-bearing for waterproof claim; no leak test supplied.
  • domain assumption Nylon taffeta bladders are airtight/waterproof and survive 0.15 Bar operation
    Section III.B.4-5; no independent burst or leak data.
  • domain assumption Foam-filled shells remain dry and maintain their displaced volume underwater
    Section III.B.2; no long-term immersion evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ARCSnake V2: Mechanical Adaptations For An Amphibious Multi-Domain Screw-Propelled Snake-Like Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CYB7HZR7

@misc{pith2026251111970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ARCSnake V2: Mechanical Adaptations For An Amphibious Multi-Domain Screw-Propelled Snake-Like Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CYB7HZR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11970}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic exploration in extreme environments, such as caves, oceans, and extraplanetary surfaces, poses significant challenges, specifically locomotion across diverse terrains. Conventional wheeled or legged robots often struggle in such contexts due to variability in traction. This paper presents ARCSnake V2, an adaptation of ARCSnake V1 with additional amphibious capabilities for aquatic environments. ARCSnake V2 combines the high mobility of hyper-redundant snake robots with the terrain versatility of Archimedean screw propulsion. Key contributions include a water-sealed mechanical design with serially linked screw and joint actuation, and an integrated buoyancy control system. Extensive experiments validate its underwater capabilities for diving and surfacing, as well as force-regulated actuation. These capabilities position ARCSnake V2 as a versatile platform for exploration, search-and-rescue, and environmental monitoring in multi-domain settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ARCSnake is a water-sealed, amphibious, screw-propelled, snake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The U-joint connects screw segments. They are controlled by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The images above showcases the screw mechanism. The gear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A torus-shaped bladder is placed around each of the U-Joints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ARCSnake on various types of land media. From left to right is grass, concrete, mulch, and gravel. ARCSnake is designed to be a multi-domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rising (left) and falling (right) velocities (top) and accelerations (bottom) for ARCSnake during a portion of the ascent and descent. ARCSnake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top left and right images display ARCSnake’s head in open [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Starting position (left) and ending position (right) of one of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The graph above depicts the input command vs measures the angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Exploration of extreme environ- ments with currentand emerging robot systems,

    H. Kalita and J. Thangavelautham, “Exploration of extreme environ- ments with currentand emerging robot systems,”Current Robotics Reports, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 97–104, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Review article: locomotion systems for ground mobile robots in unstructured environments,

    L. Bruzzone and G. Quaglia, “Review article: locomotion systems for ground mobile robots in unstructured environments,”Mechanical Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 49–62, 2012

    2012

  3. [3]

    Motion planning and control with environmental uncertainties for humanoid robot,

    W. Zhang, M. Li, and Y . Chen, “Motion planning and control with environmental uncertainties for humanoid robot,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 23, p. 7652, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    The need for and feasibility of alternative ground robots to traverse sandy and rocky extraterrestrial terrain,

    C. Li and K. Lewis, “The need for and feasibility of alternative ground robots to traverse sandy and rocky extraterrestrial terrain,”Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 2100195, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Collab- orative multi-robot systems for search and rescue: Coordination and perception,

    J. P. Queralta, J. Taipalmaa, B. C. Pullinen, V . K. Sarker, T. N. Gia, H. Tenhunen, M. Gabbouj, J. Raitoharju, and T. Westerlund, “Collab- orative multi-robot systems for search and rescue: Coordination and perception,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12610, 2020

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Arcsnake: an archimedes’ screw-propelled, reconfigurable serpentine robot for complex envi- ronments,

    D. A. Schreiber, F. Richter, A. Bilan, P. V . Gavrilov, H. M. Lam, C. H. Price, K. C. Carpenter, and M. C. Yip, “Arcsnake: an archimedes’ screw-propelled, reconfigurable serpentine robot for complex envi- ronments,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 7029–7034, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Arcsnake: Reconfigurable snakelike robot with archimedean screw propulsion for multidomain mobility,

    F. Richter, P. V . Gavrilov, H. M. Lam, A. Degani, and M. C. Yip, “Arcsnake: Reconfigurable snakelike robot with archimedean screw propulsion for multidomain mobility,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 797–809, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    The marsh screw amphibian,

    M. Neumeyer and B. Jones, “The marsh screw amphibian,”Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 83–88, 1965

    1965

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Model tests of bouyant screw rotor configurations,

    H. Dugoff and I. Robert Ehlich, “Model tests of bouyant screw rotor configurations,”Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 9–22, 1967

    1967

  2. [10]

    Vine robots,

    M. M. Coad, L. H. Blumenschein, S. Cutler, J. A. R. Zepeda, N. D. Naclerio, H. El-Hussieny, U. Mehmood, J.-H. Ryu, E. W. Hawkes, and A. M. Okamura, “Vine robots,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 120–132, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Hirose,Biologically Inspired Robots

    S. Hirose,Biologically Inspired Robots. Oxford University Press Inc., 1992

    1992

  4. [12]

    Biologically inspired snake-like robots,

    S. Hirose and M. Mori, “Biologically inspired snake-like robots,” in 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    A survey on snake robot modeling and locomotion,

    A. A. Transeth, K. Y . Pettersen, and P. Liljeback, “A survey on snake robot modeling and locomotion,”Robotica, vol. 27, pp. 999–1015, Dec 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Design of a modular snake robot,

    C. Wright, A. Johnson, A. Peck, Z. McCord, A. Naaktgeboren, P. Gi- anfortoni, M. Gonzalez-Rivero, R. Hatton, and H. Choset, “Design of a modular snake robot,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2609–2614, IEEE, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Snake-like robots [tutorial],

    S. Hirose and H. Yamada, “Snake-like robots [tutorial],”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 88–98, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Amphibot ii: An amphibious snake robot that crawls and swims using a central pattern generator,

    A. Crespi and A. J. Ijspeert, “Amphibot ii: An amphibious snake robot that crawls and swims using a central pattern generator,” in Proceedings of the 9th international conference on climbing and walking robots, pp. 19–27, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    A snake-like swimming robot using ipmc actuator/sensor,

    N. Kamamichi, M. Yamakita, K. Asaka, and Z.-W. Luo, “A snake-like swimming robot using ipmc actuator/sensor,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1812–1817, IEEE, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Three degrees-of-freedom joint for spatial hyper-redundant robots,

    E. Shammas, A. Wolf, and H. Choset, “Three degrees-of-freedom joint for spatial hyper-redundant robots,”Mechanism and machine theory, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 170–190, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Motion control of a snake robot moving between two non-parallel planes,

    M. Nakajima, M. Tanaka, K. Tanaka, and F. Matsuno, “Motion control of a snake robot moving between two non-parallel planes,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 32, pp. 1–15, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Step climbing control of snake robot with prismatic joints,

    Y . Iguchi, M. Nakajima, R. Ariizumi, and M. Tanaka, “Step climbing control of snake robot with prismatic joints,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 13, p. 4920, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    An inspection of pipe by snake robot,

    F. Trebu ˇna, I. Virgala, M. P ´astor, T. Lipt ´ak, and L. Mikov ´a, “An inspection of pipe by snake robot,”International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–12, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Sidewinding with minimal slip: Snake and robot ascent of sandy slopes,

    H. Marvi, C. Gong, N. Gravish, H. Astley, M. Travers, R. L. Hat- ton, J. R. Mendelson, H. Choset, D. L. Hu, and D. I. Goldman, “Sidewinding with minimal slip: Snake and robot ascent of sandy slopes,”Science, vol. 346, no. 6206, pp. 224–229, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Snakes on an inclined plane: Learning an adaptive sidewinding motion for chang- ing slopes,

    C. Gong, M. Tesch, D. Rollinson, and H. Choset, “Snakes on an inclined plane: Learning an adaptive sidewinding motion for chang- ing slopes,”2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1114–1119, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Analysis of creeping locomotion of a snake-like robot,

    S. Ma, “Analysis of creeping locomotion of a snake-like robot,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 205–224, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    Analysis of creeping locomotion of a snake- like robot on a slope,

    S. Ma and N. Tadokoro, “Analysis of creeping locomotion of a snake- like robot on a slope,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Design and control of biologically inspired wheel-less snake- like robot,

    Z. Y . Bayraktaroglu, A. Kilicarslan, A. Kuzucu, V . Hugel, and P. Blaze- vic, “Design and control of biologically inspired wheel-less snake- like robot,” inThe First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 1001–1006, IEEE, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Turning and side motion of snake-like robot,

    C. Ye, S. Ma, B. Li, and Y . Wang, “Turning and side motion of snake-like robot,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA’04. 2004, vol. 5, pp. 5075– 5080, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Amphibot i: an amphibious snake-like robot,

    A. Crespi, A. Badertscher, A. Guignard, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Amphibot i: an amphibious snake-like robot,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 163–175, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Cpg-based control of serpentine locomotion of a snake-like robot,

    X. Wu and S. Ma, “Cpg-based control of serpentine locomotion of a snake-like robot,”Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 326–334, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Robust neuro-optimal control of underactuated snake robots with experience replay,

    Z. Cao, Q. Xiao, R. Huang, and M. Zhou, “Robust neuro-optimal control of underactuated snake robots with experience replay,”IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 208–217, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Serpentine locomotion with robotic snakes,

    M. Saito, M. Fukaya, and T. Iwasaki, “Serpentine locomotion with robotic snakes,”IEEE Control Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 64–81, 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    A self-contained and terrain- adaptive active cord mechanism,

    G. Endo, K. Togawa, and S. Hirose, “A self-contained and terrain- adaptive active cord mechanism,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 243–244, 1999

    1999

  25. [33]

    Environmental adaptive control of a snake-like robot with variable stiffness actuators,

    D. Zhang, H. Yuan, and Z. Cao, “Environmental adaptive control of a snake-like robot with variable stiffness actuators,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 745–751, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Snake robot obstacle-aided locomotion: Modeling, simula- tions, and experiments,

    A. A. Transeth, R. I. Leine, C. Glocker, K. Y . Pettersen, and P. Lil- jeb¨ack, “Snake robot obstacle-aided locomotion: Modeling, simula- tions, and experiments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 88–104, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Experi- mental investigation of obstacle-aided locomotion with a snake robot,

    P. Liljeback, K. Y . Pettersen, Ø. Stavdahl, and J. T. Gravdahl, “Experi- mental investigation of obstacle-aided locomotion with a snake robot,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 792–800, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Gmd-snake2: a snake-like robot driven by wheels and a method for motion control,

    B. Klaassen and K. L. Paap, “Gmd-snake2: a snake-like robot driven by wheels and a method for motion control,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 4, pp. 3014–3019, IEEE, 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    Locomotion control of a snake- like robot based on dynamic manipulability,

    H. Date, Y . Hoshi, and M. Sampei, “Locomotion control of a snake- like robot based on dynamic manipulability,” inIEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2236–2241, IEEE, 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    Modular universal unit for a snake- like robot and reconfigurable robots,

    C. Ye, S. Ma, B. Li, and Y . Wang, “Modular universal unit for a snake- like robot and reconfigurable robots,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 23, no. 7-8, pp. 865–887, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Modeling and control of a snake-like robot using the screw-drive mechanism,

    H. Fukushima, S. Satomura, T. Kawai, M. Tanaka, T. Kamegawa, and F. Matsuno, “Modeling and control of a snake-like robot using the screw-drive mechanism,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 541–554, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    The omnitread serpentine robot for industrial inspection and surveillance,

    M. A. Armada, G. Granosik, M. G. Hansen, and J. Borenstein, “The omnitread serpentine robot for industrial inspection and surveillance,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 139– 148, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    The omnitread ot-4 serpentine robot—design and performance,

    J. Borenstein, M. Hansen, and A. Borrell, “The omnitread ot-4 serpentine robot—design and performance,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 601–621, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Toroidal skin drive for snake robot locomotion,

    J. C. McKenna, D. J. Anhalt, F. M. Bronson, H. B. Brown, M. Schw- erin, E. Shammas, and H. Choset, “Toroidal skin drive for snake robot locomotion,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1150–1155, IEEE, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Design, modeling, and control of an aerial robot dragon: A dual-rotor- embedded multilink robot with the ability of multi-degree-of-freedom aerial transformation,

    M. Zhao, T. Anzai, F. Shi, X. Chen, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Design, modeling, and control of an aerial robot dragon: A dual-rotor- embedded multilink robot with the ability of multi-degree-of-freedom aerial transformation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, ...

    2018

  36. [44]

    Flight motion of passing through small opening by dragon: Transformable multilinked aerial robot,

    M. Zhao, F. Shi, T. Anzai, K. Chaudhary, X. Chen, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Flight motion of passing through small opening by dragon: Transformable multilinked aerial robot,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4735–4742, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Mobility analysis of screw-based locomotion and propulsion in various media,

    J. Lim, C. Joyce, E. Peiros, M. Yeoh, P. V . Gavrilov, S. G. Wickenhiser, D. A. Schreiber, F. Richter, and M. C. Yip, “Mobility analysis of screw-based locomotion and propulsion in various media,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 7317...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Carpenter, A

    K. Carpenter, A. Thoesen, D. Mick, J. Martia, M. Cable, K. Mitchell, S. Hovsepian, J. Jasper, N. Georgiev, R. Thakker, A. Kourchians, B. Wilcox, M. Yip, and H. Marvi,Exobiology Extant Life Surveyor (EELS), pp. 328–338. ASCE Library, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Inquiry into amphibious screw traction,

    A. M. Group and B. N. Cole, “Inquiry into amphibious screw traction,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 175, p. 919–940, June 1961

    1961

  40. [48]

    Model tests of bouyant screw rotor configurations,

    H. Dugoff and I. R. Ehlich, “Model tests of bouyant screw rotor configurations,”Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 9–22, 1967

    1967

  41. [49]

    Screw-generated forces in granular media: Experimental, computational, and analytical compar- ison,

    A. Thoesen, S. Ramirez, and H. Marvi, “Screw-generated forces in granular media: Experimental, computational, and analytical compar- ison,”AIChE Journal, vol. 65, no. 3, p. 894–903, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Development of small robot with inline archimedean screw mechanism that can move through wetlands,

    K. Matsuhiro, K. Tanaka, S. Inoue, T. Zhong, K. Kida, Y . Sugahara, A. Takanishi, and H. Ishii, “Development of small robot with inline archimedean screw mechanism that can move through wetlands,” in ROMANSY 23 - Robot Design, Dynamics and Control(G. Venture, J. Solis, Y . Tak...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Terramechanics- based propulsive characteristics of mobile robot driven by archimedean screw mechanism on soft soil,

    K. Nagaoka, M. Otsuki, T. Kubota, and S. Tanaka, “Terramechanics- based propulsive characteristics of mobile robot driven by archimedean screw mechanism on soft soil,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4946–4951, IEEE, 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    Nasu–novel actuating screw unit: Origami- inspired screw-based propulsion on mobile ground robots,

    C. Joyce, J. Lim, R. Nguyen, M. Owens, S. Wickenhiser, E. Peiros, F. Richter, and M. C. Yip, “Nasu–novel actuating screw unit: Origami- inspired screw-based propulsion on mobile ground robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00184, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The riverine utility craft (ruc),

    W. Fales, D. W. Amick, and B. G. Schreiner, “The riverine utility craft (ruc),”Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 23–38, 1972

    1972

  46. [54]

    Development of lunar exploration rover using screw propulsion units: Note on dynamic behavior and moving direction control,

    K. Nagaoka, M. Otsuki, T. Kubota, and S. Tanaka, “Development of lunar exploration rover using screw propulsion units: Note on dynamic behavior and moving direction control,” inProc. 19th Workshop on JAXA Astrodyn. Flight Mech, pp. 143–148, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    Small remotely operated screw- propelled vehicle,

    D. Osi ´nski and K. Szykiedans, “Small remotely operated screw- propelled vehicle,” inProgress in Automation, Robotics and Measuring Techniques, pp. 191–200, Springer, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Design and analysis of a novel multifunctional screw-propelled vehicle,

    D. He and L. Long, “Design and analysis of a novel multifunctional screw-propelled vehicle,” inInternational Conference on Unmanned Systems, pp. 324–330, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Design and kinematic mod- eling of a screw-propelled mobile robot to perform remote explosive scent tracing filter sampling in forest during humanitarian demining,

    J. H. Lugo, M. Zoppi, and R. Molfino, “Design and kinematic mod- eling of a screw-propelled mobile robot to perform remote explosive scent tracing filter sampling in forest during humanitarian demining,” inAdvances in Cooperative Robotics, pp. 699–715, World Scientific, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    A study of omnidirectional quad-screw-drive config- urations for all-terrain locomotion,

    J. T. Freeberg, “A study of omnidirectional quad-screw-drive config- urations for all-terrain locomotion,” 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Conceptual design of tetrad-screw propelled omnidirectional all-terrain mobile robot,

    J. H. Lugo, V . Ramadoss, M. Zoppi, and R. Molfino, “Conceptual design of tetrad-screw propelled omnidirectional all-terrain mobile robot,” in2nd International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering, pp. 13–17, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Omnidirectional all-terrain screw-driven robot design, modeling, and application in humanitarian demining*,

    O. Oladunjoye, C. Maffattone, J. Al-Nawal, S. Fasullo, E. Greenspan, J. Koller, A. Nikulin, T. de Smet, and G. M. Clayton, “Omnidirectional all-terrain screw-driven robot design, modeling, and application in humanitarian demining*,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 55, no. 27, pp. 7– 12...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.