Hyperelastic Modeling and Validation of Hybrid-Actuated Soft Robot with Pressure-Stiffening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soft robots have gained popularity, especially in intraluminal applications, because their soft bodies make them safer for surgical interventions than flexures with rigid backbones. This study investigates a pressure-regulating stiffness tendon-driven soft robot and provides a continuum mechanics model for it towards using that in adaptive stiffness applications. To this end, first, a central single-chamber pneumatic and tri-tendon-driven soft robot was designed and fabricated. Afterward, the classic Cosserat's rod model was adopted and augmented with the hyperelastic material model. The model was then formulated as a boundary-value problem and was solved using the shooting method. To identify the pressure-stiffening effect, a parameter-identification problem was formulated to identify the relationship between the flexural rigidity of the soft robot and internal pressure. The flexural rigidity of the robot at various pressures was optimized to match theoretical deformation and experiments. The theoretical findings of arbitrary pressures were then compared with the experiment for validation. The internal chamber pressure was in the range of 0 to 40 kPa and the tendon tensions were in the range of 0 to 3 N. The theoretical and experimental findings were in fair agreement for tip displacement with a maximum error of 6.40% of the flexure's length.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".