4.6 Article

Arthropod-Metamerism-Inspired Resonant Piezoelectric Millirobot

期刊

ADVANCED INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
卷 3, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aisy.202100015

关键词

arthropod metamerism; high agility; piezoelectric millirobots; submicrometer resolution; wide speed ranges

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1913215, 51622502]
  2. Self-Planned Task of State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System (HIT) [SKLRS202002B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a millirobot design inspired by arthropod metamerism in nature, achieving fast motion, high resolution, wide speed range, high agility, large load capacity, good adaptability, and miniaturization through the coordination of multiple piezoelectric segments.
Miniaturization, fast motion, high resolution, high agility, and good adaptability are relatively contradictory characteristics in mobile robot design. It is indeed a challenge to satisfy these performances at the same time. Inspired by the arthropod metamerism in nature, herein, a millirobot composed of three piezoelectric segments is proposed. The millirobot is tethered for power, and the whole size of the millirobot is 58 x 44 x 12 mm; it uses several principles of arthropod locomotion, can carry loads and cross obstacles, and also has the rapidity and agility like a centipede through the coordination of multiple piezoelectric segments. Fast motion with a maximum speed of 516 mm s(-1) is realized by operating at resonant mode, and stepping motion with a resolution of 0.44 mu m is achieved by the pulsed sinusoidal mode. The widest speed range among published reports of millirobots is achieved (from 4.5e(-3) to 9 BL s(-1)). Its agility surpasses other piezoelectric millirobots; the linear, steering, and rotational motions are performed and switched flexibly. The results show that fast motion, high resolution, wide speed range, high agility, large load capacity, good adaptability, and miniaturization are successfully achieved by the millirobot.

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