Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Design and Dimensional Optimization of Legged Structures for Construction Robots

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a hexapod construction robot with a fixed total leg length, the best all-round kinematic performance comes from a short coxa (10–20% of the leg) and a tibia of 40–45%, a conclusion the paper reaches by combining three separate…

desk verdict A useful, mostly solid design rule for hexapod leg proportions, but the ADAMS flexibility study uses joint limits that contradict the paper's own kinematic model and needs reconciliation before the 'comprehensive' claim lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16328 v1 pith:QJAMLNJM submitted 2025-07-22 cs.RO

Xiao Liu , Xianlong Yang , Weijun Wang , Wei Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords constructionrobothexapodlegstructuredesigndimensionaloptimizationimprovedworkspaceaveragemanipulabilitybodyflexibilityADAMSsimulation
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 sets out to answer a design question for hexapod construction robots: given a fixed total leg length, how should that length be split among the coxa, femur, and tibia so the robot moves best on rough, obstacle-strewn job sites? It answers with a specific recipe — coxa 10–20%, tibia 40–45%, femur the remainder — and reaches it through three separate kinematic measures. Swing-phase reaching is judged by an improved workspace whose area is computed graphically, and by a newly defined average manipulability computed from the velocity Jacobian; stance-phase body support is judged by a body-flexibility index maximized in ADAMS virtual-prototype simulations. The three measures converge on the same leg proportions, and the paper presents this as the first multi-dimensional quantitative evaluation of leg motion performance aimed at construction terrain, giving designers of legged construction robots a structural starting point.

What carries the argument

Three indices do the work. The improved workspace restricts the knee angle to $[-\theta_2 - \pi/2, 0]$, tying it to the hip angle so the tibia stays at or above the horizontal; its area, computed geometrically as $S_W = 2 l_2 l_3 \pi / 3$, is what makes femur-equals-tibia optimal. Average manipulability $w_A = \frac{1}{mn} \sum w(\theta_{2i}, \theta_{3j})$ samples the manipulability $|\det J(q)|$ (the foot velocity Jacobian determinant) over a fine grid of hip and knee angles, converted into a constrained nonlinear optimization problem with $l_1 + l_2 + l_3 = 1000$ mm. Body flexibility $F_B = \frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{S_x+S_y+S_z}{2L} + \frac{\phi_x+\phi_y+\phi_z}{180}\right)$ condenses the six reachable ranges of body translation and rotation — measured by ADAMS as twelve limit poses with joint sensors stopping motion at joint limits or on body-ground contact — into one dimensionless number between 0 and 1, and the ADAMS design-study sweep maximizes it as a function of tibia length for several fixed coxa ratios.

What would settle it

Build two hexapods with identical total leg length but tibia ratios of 0.45 and 0.55, run them over the same obstacle course, and compare step-success rate and body stability; or, more cheaply, recompute the ADAMS body-flexibility sweep with a differently weighted $F_B$ — say translation-weighted or pose-volume-based — and check whether the optimal tibia ratio still falls in 0.4–0.45.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that leg-segment proportions can be fixed before any control or dynamics work by three kinematic criteria, and that all three point the same way. For the swing phase, the paper redefines the foot workspace by coupling the knee angle to the hip angle ($\theta_3 \in [-\theta_2 - \pi/2, 0]$) so the tibia never dips below horizontal, which prevents leg-body interference and keeps footholds stable on obstacles of arbitrary height; a graphical area calculation then shows the improved workspace is largest when the femur and tibia are equal and the coxa share is small. Second, averaging the manipulability $|\det J|$ over a grid of joint angles gives an average manipulability that peaks near a tibia ratio of 0.45 and grows as the coxa ratio shrinks. Third, for the stance phase, a dimensionless body-flexibility index $F_B$ — the average of normalized translation ranges and rotation ranges of the body — is maximized via ADAMS design-study sweeps and also peaks for tibia ratios between 0.4 and 0.45. The combined design rule is therefore: with total leg length fixed, set the coxa ratio between 0.1 and 0.2 and the tibia ratio between 0.4 and 0.45, since the hexapod retains six degrees of freedom in every stance configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the body-flexibility index $F_B$ of Eq. (29), introduced in Section 6.1 without derivation, with hand-chosen weights ($2L$ and $180^\circ$) and equal weighting of the three translations and three rotations, is a valid measure of the robot's overall kinematic flexibility; the ADAMS simulations in Section 6.2 maximize this index, and the paper's tibia-ratio recommendation of 0.4–0.45 follows directly from it, so a different flexibility measure could change the recommended proportions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers of legged construction robots can set leg-segment proportions from kinematic measures alone: coxa 0.1–0.2 and tibia 0.4–0.45 of total leg length, with the femur taking the remainder.
  • The improved-workspace joint constraint, which couples the knee angle to the hip angle so the tibia stays at or above horizontal, removes leg-body interference and keeps the foot able to plant on obstacles of any height within range, so swing-phase reach is judged on a realistically reachable area rather than the full theoretical one.
  • Average manipulability gives a single-number ranking of leg proportions over the whole joint range, and it peaks near a tibia ratio of 0.45 across the tested coxa ratios.
  • The body-flexibility index and the ADAMS design-study sweep extend the same optimization logic to the stance phase, where three or six legs form a closed chain that resists purely analytical treatment.
  • Because the tripod-gait mechanism has exactly six degrees of freedom regardless of how many legs are in stance, the recommended proportions hold for the entire walking cycle, supporting both reach in swing and body pose in stance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is sensitivity of the recommendation to the flexibility metric: since Eq. (29) weights translations and rotations equally with hand-chosen scales, re-running the ADAMS sweep with a differently weighted $F_B$ (or with the volume of the reachable body-pose space) would show how robust the 0.4–0.45 tibia window really is.
  • The optimization is kinematic only; coupling these proportions to a dynamic model with construction payloads could reveal whether the 0.4–0.45 tibia also minimizes joint torque or energy cost, which the paper does not address.
  • The method's structure — improved workspace, average manipulability, body flexibility — transfers directly to other leg counts and leg budgets, so testing it at, say, 800 mm or 1200 mm total length would check whether the optimal ratios scale or shift.
  • The tibia-stays-vertical design rule implies a testable stability benefit: a hexapod built with these proportions should show smaller body pitch when planting feet on obstacles of varying height than a leg of equal length with different proportions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dimensional optimization procedure for the three-segment (coxa–femur–tibia) leg of a hexapod construction robot. It derives the leg forward and inverse kinematics, defines an 'improved workspace' by coupling the knee-angle lower bound to the hip angle, computes the foot workspace area analytically, introduces an 'average manipulability' index from the velocity Jacobian, and performs ADAMS simulations of a parameterized hexapod to define a 'body flexibility' measure FB. Combining the three metrics, the paper recommends a coxa length ratio l1 of 0.1–0.2 and a tibia length ratio l3 of 0.4–0.45 at fixed total leg length.

Significance. The kinematic derivation in Sections 3–5 is generally careful: the forward kinematics (Eq. (7)), the 3×3 Jacobian (Eqs. (20)–(22)), the workspace-area formula (Eq. (16)), and the numerical average-manipulability optimization are presented with enough detail to be reproduced. The idea of evaluating a design with separate swing-phase and stance-phase metrics is practically relevant, and the paper is explicit about relying on a virtual prototype. The final design recommendation is plausible and useful for the intended construction scenario, provided the body-flexibility metric and the simulation setup are validated. The contribution would be significant for the legged-construction-robot community, but the present form leaves the key stance-phase metric under-justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2, with Table 2] The ADAMS simulation constrains the hip joint to θ2 ∈ [−π/6, π/6], while the kinematic model, workspace analysis, and manipulability optimization all use θ2 ∈ [−π/3, π/3]. Since the measured body translation/rotation intervals in Eq. (28) and the resulting FB in Eq. (29) are determined by whichever joint first hits its limit, this halved hip range changes the FB landscape and can shift the l3 optimum. Physical joint limits should not depend on whether the leg is in swing or stance; the paper must either justify the narrower range or rerun the simulation with the same θ2 limits as the rest of the analysis.
  2. [Section 6.1, Eq. (29)] The body-flexibility metric FB is introduced without derivation and with hand-selected normalization constants (2L and 180°) and equal weights for translations and rotations. No evidence is given that FB corresponds to a physical or task-relevant notion of flexibility, and no sensitivity analysis shows whether the optimum is robust to the weights. Because Section 6.3 uses the FB maximum to draw the central recommendation (l3 ≈ 0.4–0.45), this metric is load-bearing; a derivation or validation study is required to support the claim.
  3. [Section 4.4 and Section 6.3] The paper concludes that l1 should be 'between 0.1 and 0.2', but every tested metric (workspace area, manipulability, body flexibility) monotonically improves as l1 decreases over the tested range 0.05–0.20. The chosen interval is therefore a boundary of the tested set, not an optimum; unless structural constraints (e.g., actuator packaging, ground clearance, joint torque) are modeled, the data do not exclude l1 = 0.05 or smaller. The recommendation should be stated as a trade-off with an explicit lower-bound constraint.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract repeats the same sentence about construction-site challenges twice: 'Considering common challenges on construction sites such as uneven terrain, elevation changes, narrow spaces, and dynamic obstacles, this study analyzes...' and then 'In response to common challenges in construction sites—such as uneven terrain, height variations, narrow spaces, and dynamic obstacles—this paper analyzes...' One occurrence should be removed.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The matrix product notation in Eq. (6) is inconsistent: the text writes T_3^0 = T_1^0 T_2^1 T_2^3, but the third factor should be T_3^2 (the transformation from frame 2 to frame 3). Please correct the superscripts.
  3. [Section 6.1, Eq. (29)] The sentence following Eq. (29) says FB is 'a dimensionless constant ranging between 1 and 0'; this should read 'between 0 and 1' if the intended normalization is a weighted average.
  4. [Section 5.4] The choice of a 1° sampling interval for the average-manipulability index is not tested for convergence; a brief comparison with finer/coarser grids would strengthen the claim that the reported optimum is stable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the design recommendations are results of explicit optimization objectives rather than reductions to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's final recommendation (coxa ratio 0.1–0.2, tibia ratio 0.4–0.45) is produced by optimizing three explicitly stated performance measures: improved workspace area, average manipulability, and body flexibility. None of these measures is defined in terms of the claimed optimal ratios. Equation (16) analytically derives the workspace area as a function of l2 and l3 and then maximizes it; Equation (27) averages the manipulability |det J| over sampled joint angles and then seeks its maximum; Equation (29) defines body flexibility FB from simulated body translation and rotation ranges, with the tibia ratio varied in the ADAMS design study. The claimed optimal ranges are outcomes of these optimizations, not built into the definitions. The body-flexibility metric's weights are hand-chosen and the ADAMS simulation uses a different hip-joint range than the kinematic model, but those are validity and consistency concerns about whether FB is an appropriate objective, not evidence of circularity. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a previously fitted value. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the relevant circularity sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's design recommendations depend on a series of hand-chosen ranges, normalization constants, and geometric rules. The most consequential are the body flexibility weighting (Eq. 29) and the improved workspace coupling rule, since these directly determine the claimed optima. No free parameter is fitted to external data.

free parameters (5)
  • Total leg length l = 1000 mm
    Fixed normalization to make lengths commensurate; no physical requirement, chosen by hand.
  • Joint angle ranges = θ1 ±π/4, θ2 ±π/3, θ3 −3π/4 to 0 (Table 2)
    Provisional ranges chosen by hand to reflect expected construction robot motion; changes in these ranges would alter the workspace and optimization.
  • Improved workspace coupling rule = θ3_min = -θ2 - π/2
    Ad hoc rule to keep tibia angle >= 90 degrees relative to horizontal, used to avoid body interference; no physical measurement supports it.
  • Body flexibility weighting constants = 1/(2L) and 1/180
    Hand-chosen normalization to combine translation and rotation ranges; the equal weighting of the three translations and three rotations is arbitrary.
  • Average manipulability sampling step = 1 degree
    Discretization choice for uniform sampling; m=n=121. A coarser or finer grid would slightly change the computed average.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The swing phase leg can be modeled as a rigid 3-DOF serial manipulator with ideal revolute joints.
    Used in Section 3.1 for the D-H model and Jacobian. Real joints have friction, compliance, and backlash.
  • domain assumption In the stance phase, foot-ground contact can be modeled as a point contact equivalent to a 3-DOF spherical joint.
    Stated in Section 2 around Eq. (1). Real foot-ground interaction involves slip, deformation, and friction anisotropy.
  • domain assumption The robot uses a tripod gait with exactly three legs in stance.
    Section 3.2 states the construction robot uses the tripod gait; the kinematic analysis of the stance phase is limited to three support legs.
  • ad hoc to paper Avoiding leg-body interference is guaranteed by keeping the angle between tibia and horizontal plane >= 90 degrees.
    The improved workspace in Section 4.3 is based on this geometric rule, but no collision model or physical test validates that this condition is sufficient or necessary.
  • ad hoc to paper The body flexibility FB defined by Eq. (29) is a valid measure of the robot's overall kinematic flexibility.
    The formula is introduced without derivation or literature support; the weighting between translation and rotation is arbitrary and no external benchmark is used.
  • domain assumption The construction environment constraints (uneven terrain, elevation changes, narrow spaces) are fully captured by the chosen joint ranges and workspace requirements.
    The paper lists construction challenges in the abstract but does not derive joint ranges from specific terrain data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Dimensional Optimization of Legged Structures for Construction Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJAMLNJM

@misc{pith2026250716328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Dimensional Optimization of Legged Structures for Construction Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJAMLNJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16328}
}
read the original abstract

Faced with complex and unstructured construction environments, wheeled and tracked robots exhibit significant limitations in terrain adaptability and flexibility, making it difficult to meet the requirements of autonomous operation. Inspired by ants in nature, this paper proposes a leg configuration design and optimization method tailored for construction scenarios, aiming to enhance the autonomous mobility of construction robots. This paper analyzes the full operational motion performance of the leg during both swing and stance phases. First, based on kinematic modeling and multi-dimensional workspace analysis, the concept of an "improved workspace" is introduced, and graphical methods are used to optimize the leg dimensions during the swing phase. Furthermore, a new concept of "average manipulability" is introduced based on the velocity Jacobian matrix, and numerical solutions are applied to obtain the leg segment ratio that maximizes manipulability. To overcome the difficulties associated with traditional analytical methods, virtual prototype simulations are conducted in ADAMS to explore the relationship between the robot body's optimal flexibility and leg segment proportions. In summary, the leg segment proportions with the best comprehensive motion performance are obtained. This study presents the first multi-dimensional quantitative evaluation framework for leg motion performance tailored for construction environments, providing a structural design foundation for legged construction robots to achieve autonomous mobility in complex terrains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16328 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. For clarity, the three rotational joints of the robot leg are referred to as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Fig.8. It can be visually observed from the figure that when the ratio of the femur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Fig.12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework for Leg Design and Dimension Optimization Based on Kinematic Performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Design Diagram of Leg Structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simplified Model of the Leg in Swing Phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simplified Model of the Leg in Stance Phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Point Cloud Diagram of the Leg Workspace in Swing Phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic Diagram of the Foot Workspace in the 2D Plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic Diagram of the Improved Foot Workspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Foot Workspace Diagram with Different Coxa Ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic Diagram of Workspace Area by Graphical Method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Manipulability Variation Surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Surface of Average Manipulability Variation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Parameterized Model of the Hexapod Robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic Diagram of the Robot Body in Extreme Poses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Curves of Translational and Rotational Displacement Variations Along Positive Axes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Curve of Body Flexibility Variation 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advanced informatic technologies for in- telligent construction: A review,

    L. Zhang, Y . Li, Y . Pan, et al., “Advanced informatic technologies for in- telligent construction: A review,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 137: 109104

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Can robots replace human beings?—Assessment on the developmental potential of construction robot,

    X. Ma, C. Mao, G. Liu, “Can robots replace human beings?—Assessment on the developmental potential of construction robot,” Journal of Building Engineering, 2022, 56: 104727

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Robotic technologies for on-site building construction: A systematic review,

    M. Gharbia, A. Chang-Richards, Y . Lu, et al., “Robotic technologies for on-site building construction: A systematic review,” Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 32: 101584

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Recent advancements of robotics in construction,

    B. Xiao, C. Chen, X. Yin, “Recent advancements of robotics in construction,” Automation in Construction, 2022, 144: 104591

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Topology-Shape-Size Optimization Design Synthesis of Compliant Grippers for Robotics: A Comprehensive Review and Prospective Advances,

    T. P. Dao, H. G. Le, N. L. Ho, “Topology-Shape-Size Optimization Design Synthesis of Compliant Grippers for Robotics: A Comprehensive Review and Prospective Advances,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2025: 105106. 20

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Accurate perception and representation of rough terrain for a hexapod robot by analysing foot locomotion,

    M. Li, Z. Wang, D. Zhang, et al., “Accurate perception and representation of rough terrain for a hexapod robot by analysing foot locomotion,”Measure- ment, 2022, 193: 110904

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Design, construction, and rough-terrain loco- motion control of novel hexapod walking robot with four degrees of freedom per leg,

    P. ˇC´ıˇzek, M. Zoula, J. Faigl, “Design, construction, and rough-terrain loco- motion control of novel hexapod walking robot with four degrees of freedom per leg,” IEEE Access, 2021, 9: 17866–17881

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Overview of structure and drive for wheel- legged robots,

    Q. Zhu, X. Guan, B. Yu, et al., “Overview of structure and drive for wheel- legged robots,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2024, 181: 104777

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Meta reinforcement learning for optimal design of legged robots,

    ´A. Belmonte-Baeza, J. Lee, G. Valsecchi, et al., “Meta reinforcement learning for optimal design of legged robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2022, 7(4): 12134–12141

    2022

  2. [10]

    Dexterous workspace optimization of an asymmetric six-degree of freedom Stewart–Gough platform type manipulator,

    M. Toz, S. Kucuk, “Dexterous workspace optimization of an asymmetric six-degree of freedom Stewart–Gough platform type manipulator,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2013, 61(12): 1516–1528

    2013

  3. [11]

    Design synthesis and optimization of a 4-SPS intrinsically compliant parallel wrist rehabilitation robotic orthosis,

    S. Hussain, P. K. Jamwal, P. Van Vliet, “Design synthesis and optimization of a 4-SPS intrinsically compliant parallel wrist rehabilitation robotic orthosis,” Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 2021, 8(6): 1562–1575

    2021

  4. [12]

    Design and optimization of a multimode amphibi- ous robot with propeller-leg,

    X. Ma, G. Wang, K. Liu, “Design and optimization of a multimode amphibi- ous robot with propeller-leg,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2022, 38(6): 3807–3820

    2022

  5. [13]

    Kinematics optimization of a novel 7-DOF redundant manipulator,

    Y . Chen, X. Zhang, Y . Huang, et al., “Kinematics optimization of a novel 7-DOF redundant manipulator,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2023, 163: 104377

    2023

  6. [14]

    Analysis and design optimization of a compliant robotic gripper mechanism with inverted flexure joints,

    P. Kuresangsai, M. O. T. Cole, G. Hao, “Analysis and design optimization of a compliant robotic gripper mechanism with inverted flexure joints,”Mecha- nism and Machine Theory, 2024, 202: 105779

    2024

  7. [15]

    Task-oriented optimal dimen- sional synthesis of robotic manipulators with limited mobility,

    M. Russo, L. Raimondi, X. Dong, et al., “Task-oriented optimal dimen- sional synthesis of robotic manipulators with limited mobility,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2021, 69: 102096

    2021

  8. [16]

    A novel multi objective constraints based industrial gripper design with optimized stiffness for object grasping,

    V . P. Dinakaran, M. P. Balasubramaniyan, Q. H. Le, et al., “A novel multi objective constraints based industrial gripper design with optimized stiffness for object grasping,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2023, 160: 104303. 21

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kinematics analysis and performance optimization of a novel asymmetric parallel biped robot,

    Y . Zhang, X. Zang, B. Chen, et al., “Kinematics analysis and performance optimization of a novel asymmetric parallel biped robot,”Robotics and Au- tonomous Systems, 2025, 191: 105003

    2025

  10. [18]

    Optimum design for a new reconfig- urable two-wheeled self-balancing robot based on virtual equivalent parallel mechanism,

    H. Tang, J. W. Zhang, L. Pan, et al., “Optimum design for a new reconfig- urable two-wheeled self-balancing robot based on virtual equivalent parallel mechanism,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 2023, 145(5): 053302

    2023

  11. [19]

    Structure design and solution of kinematics of robot manipulator for 3D concrete printing,

    V . Z´ada, K. Belda, “Structure design and solution of kinematics of robot manipulator for 3D concrete printing,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3723–3734

    2022

  12. [20]

    Designing robots for reachability and dexterity: Continuum surgical robots as a pretext application,

    K. Leibrandt, L. Da Cruz, C. Bergeles, “Designing robots for reachability and dexterity: Continuum surgical robots as a pretext application,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023, 39(4): 2989–3007

    2023

  13. [21]

    Dynamic modeling and design of a 5-DOF hybrid robot for machining,

    C. Dong, H. Liu, J. Xiao, et al., “Dynamic modeling and design of a 5-DOF hybrid robot for machining,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2021, 165: 104438

    2021

  14. [22]

    Design and optimization of a novel pneu- matic translational manipulator with independent constraints,

    T. Wang, Y . Zhao, B. Wang, “Design and optimization of a novel pneu- matic translational manipulator with independent constraints,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2025: 105125

    2025

  15. [23]

    A Bionic Hexapod Tracked Robot for Curtain Wall Installation: Mechatronic Design and Development,

    X. Liu, S. Wang, W. Wang, et al., “A Bionic Hexapod Tracked Robot for Curtain Wall Installation: Mechatronic Design and Development,”TechRxiv, DOI: 10.36227/techrxiv. 174286340.08385481/v1

  16. [24]

    400 million years on six legs: on the origin and early evolution of Hexapoda,

    D. A. Grimaldi, “400 million years on six legs: on the origin and early evolution of Hexapoda,” Arthropod Structure & Development, 2010, 39(2–3): 191–203

    2010

  17. [25]

    Design features of the kinematic chain of the ant exoskeleton,

    S. Arroyave-Tobon, J. Drapin, P. Moretto, et al., “Design features of the kinematic chain of the ant exoskeleton,” Procedia CIRP, 2023, 119: 855– 860

    2023

  18. [26]

    Simulation for senior undergraduate education of robot engineering based on Webots,

    H. Yue, J. Miao, J. Zhang, et al., “Simulation for senior undergraduate education of robot engineering based on Webots,”Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2021, 29(5): 1176–1190. 22

    2021

  19. [27]

    Attitude Control of Flapping-Wing Micro Air Vehicles Based on Hyperbolic Tangent Function Sliding Mode Control,

    X. Liu, W. Wang, W. Feng, et al., “Attitude Control of Flapping-Wing Micro Air Vehicles Based on Hyperbolic Tangent Function Sliding Mode Control,” in Proc. International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications, Singapore: Springer Nature, 2023, pp. 381–393

    2023

  20. [28]

    Advances in Mechanism and Machine Science: Proceedings of the 16th IFToMM World Congress 2023—Volume 1, Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Creating star worlds: Reshaping the robot workspace for online motion planning,

    A. Dahlin, Y . Karayiannidis, “Creating star worlds: Reshaping the robot workspace for online motion planning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023, 39(5): 3655–3670

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. V . Putz, F. Cimpoesu, M. Ferbinteanu,Structural Chemistry: Principles, Methods, and Case Studies, Springer, 2018. 23 Figure 1: Framework for Leg Design and Dimension Optimization Based on Kinematic Performance 24 Figure 2: Design Diagram of Leg Structure Figure 3: Simplifi...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.