4.7 Review

Design and Kinematic Modeling of Constant Curvature Continuum Robots: A Review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 13, 页码 1661-1683

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0278364910368147

关键词

Manipulation; grasping; manipulation and compliant assembly; dynamics; mechanics; design and control; continuum robot; kinematics; hyperredundant robot; biologically inspired robot

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0651803]
  2. Mississippi State University
  3. Vanderbilt State University
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  5. Directorate For Engineering [0651803] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continuum robotics has rapidly become a rich and diverse area of research, with many designs and applications demonstrated. Despite this diversity in form and purpose, there exists remarkable similarity in the fundamental simplified kinematic models that have been applied to continuum robots. However, this can easily be obscured, especially to a newcomer to the field, by the different applications, coordinate frame choices, and analytical formalisms employed. In this paper we review several modeling approaches in a common frame and notational convention, illustrating that for piecewise constant curvature, they produce identical results. This discussion elucidates what has been articulated in different ways by a number of researchers in the past several years, namely that constant-curvature kinematics can be considered as consisting of two separate submappings: one that is general and applies to all continuum robots, and another that is robot-specific. These mappings are then developed both for the single-section and for the multi-section case. Similarly, we discuss the decomposition of differential kinematics (the robot's Jacobian) into robot-specific and robot-independent portions. The paper concludes with a perspective on several of the themes of current research that are shaping the future of continuum robotics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据