Energetic analysis and experiments of earthworm-like locomotion with compliant surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy consumption of worm robots is composed of three parts: heat losses in the motors, internal friction losses of the worm device and mechanical energy locomotion requirements which we refer to as the cost of transport (COT). The COT, which is the main focus of this paper, is composed of work against two types of external factors: (i) the resisting forces, such as weight, tether force, or fluid drag for robots navigating inside wet environments and (ii) sliding friction forces that may result from sliding either forward or backward. In a previous work, we determined the mechanical energy requirement of worm robot locomotion over compliant surfaces, independently of the efficiency of the worm device. Analytical results were obtained by summing up the external work done on the robot and alternatively, by integrating the actuator forces over the actuator motions. In this paper, we present experimental results for an earthworm robot fitted with compliant contacts and these are post-processed to estimate the energy expenditure of the device. The results show that due to compliance, the COT of our device is increased by up to four-fold compared to theoretical predictions for rigid-contact worm-like locomotion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".