4.6 Article

Mechanical models of sandfish locomotion reveal principles of high performance subsurface sand-swimming

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
卷 8, 期 62, 页码 1332-1345

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0678

关键词

locomotion; granular; modelling; robot; lizard; swimming

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award at the Scientific Interface
  2. NSF [PHY-0749991]
  3. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology (MAST) Collaborative Technology Alliance (CTA) [W911NF-08-2-0004]
  4. Division Of Physics
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0749991] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We integrate biological experiment, empirical theory, numerical simulation and a physical model to reveal principles of undulatory locomotion in granular media. High-speed X-ray imaging of the sandfish lizard, Scincus scincus, in 3 mm glass particles shows that it swims within the medium without using its limbs by propagating a single-period travelling sinusoidal wave down its body, resulting in a wave efficiency, eta, the ratio of its average forward speed to the wave speed, of approximately 0.5. A resistive force theory (RFT) that balances granular thrust and drag forces along the body predicts eta close to the observed value. We test this prediction against two other more detailed modelling approaches: a numerical model of the sandfish coupled to a discrete particle simulation of the granular medium, and an undulatory robot that swims within granular media. Using these models and analytical solutions of the RFT, we vary the ratio of undulation amplitude to wavelength (A/lambda) and demonstrate an optimal condition for sand-swimming, which for a given A results from the competition between eta and lambda. The RFT, in agreement with the simulated and physical models, predicts that for a single-period sinusoidal wave, maximal speed occurs for A/lambda approximate to 0.2, the same kinematics used by the sandfish.

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

4.6
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