machines

Article
Combined Soft Grasping and Crawling Locomotor Robot for
Exterior Navigation of Tubular Structures
Nicolás Mendoza 1,2 and Mahdi Haghshenas-Jaryani 2,3, *

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA;
[email protected]
2 Bioinspired and Biomimetic Robotics (Bio2 Robotics) Laboratory, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
3 Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-575-646-5698

Abstract: This paper presents the design, development, and testing of a robot that combines soft-body
grasping and crawling locomotion to navigate tubular objects. Inspired by the natural snakes’ climb-
ing locomotion of tubular objects, the soft robot includes proximal and distal modules with radial
expansion/contraction for grasping around the objects and a longitudinal contractile–expandable
driving module in-between for providing a bi-directional crawling movement along the length of
the object. The robot’s grasping modules are made of fabrics, and the crawling module is made of
an extensible pneumatic soft actuator (ePSA). Conceptual designs and CAD models of the robot
parts, textile-based inflatable structures, and pneumatic driving mechanisms were developed. The
mechanical parts were fabricated using advanced and conventional manufacturing techniques. An
Arduino-based electro-pneumatic control board was developed for generating cyclic patterns of
grasping and locomotion. Different reinforcing patterns and materials characterize the locomotor
actuators’ dynamical responses to the varying input pressures. The robot was tested in a laboratory
setting to navigate a cable, and the collected data were used to modify the designs and control soft-
ware and hardware. The capability of the soft robot for navigating cables in vertical, horizontal, and
Citation: Mendoza, N.;
curved path scenarios was successfully demonstrated. Compared to the initial design, the forward
Haghshenas-Jaryani, M. Combined speed is improved three-fold.
Soft Grasping and Crawling
Locomotor Robot for Exterior Keywords: soft robot; biologically inspired; grasping; crawling locomotion; inflatable body; pneumatic
Navigation of Tubular Structures. soft actuator
Machines 2024, 12, 157. https://
doi.org/10.3390/machines12030157

Academic Editor: Edgar

1. Introduction
Martínez-García
Inspection and health monitoring of infrastructure such as overhead power lines,
Received: 29 December 2023 cables and wire rope, poles, pipes, and pipelines in industrial settings, ships, bridges,
Revised: 17 February 2024 streetlamps, lighting rod poles, facilities, warehouses, and outdoor facilities is crucial for
Accepted: 21 February 2024
reducing the chance of catastrophic accidents and high cost of maintenance and operations.
Published: 24 February 2024
Due to the complex, costly, hazardous, and labor-intensive nature of these tasks, robots and
autonomous systems have been developed, utilized, and studied to perform them [1–4].
Over the past 60 years, several robots have been designed and developed to perform these
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
tasks. These robots can be categorized into the following groups: (1) pole/pipe-climbing,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
(2) cable climbing, and (3) rope-wire climbing. Remote and direct sensing systems can
This article is an open access article be integrated to enable these robots to measure and detect properties of the structures
distributed under the terms and and search for and find defects for either repair or replacement procedures. Navigating
conditions of the Creative Commons varying-shape structures using autonomous robots has recently emerged, with various
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// applications, e.g., space exploration, urban search-and-rescue, and inspection, maintenance,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and repair of infrastructure. Effective operation requires robots to have versatile locomotion
4.0/).

Machines 2024, 12, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines12030157 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2024, 12, 157 2 of 19

that adapts easily to different environments with a low cost of transportation. The men-
tioned conventional rigid robots are developed for traversing structures with a specific
configuration. The areas for improvement that future research might focus on are as follows:
(1) Developing robots that can handle more complex structures like curved poles or branch-
ing pipes. (2) Creating better obstacle negotiation capabilities. (3) Exploring alternative
adhesion and locomotion methods for increased efficiency and versatility. (4) Simplifying
operations and enhancing autonomy for wider practical applications. For comprehensive
reviews of conventional (rigid) climbing robots, refer to [1,5–10].
To achieve higher maneuverability while navigating complex shape structures, the re-
cent advancements in soft robotics enhance the capabilities of robots by incorporating
compliant and structurally deformable bodies that generate a higher complex motion com-
pared to their rigid counterparts and adapt to different environments, tasks, while reducing
the possibility of damaging the structures [11,12]. In particular, textile-based (fabrics) and
pneumatic artificial muscles (i.e., McKibben actuators) are capable of providing a high
load-to-weight ratio [4,13,14]. Despite many research efforts in soft robots’ locomotion and
grasping, two growing research areas in soft robotics, the combination of locomotion and
grasping capabilities in one soft robotic platform has not been sufficiently studied [4,15–18].
Yet, there is a unique challenge created by combined grasping–locomotion regarding carry-
ing a payload without compromising its motion capabilities or shape morphing to adjust
changes in the robot’s center of mass [15].
Soft crawling robots have gained significant attention due to their expected efficient
interactions with varying surroundings and their potential to perform a wide range of tasks,
including search and rescue, inspecting infrastructure, surveillance, delivering medications,
and assisting humans [19]. In particular, these robots can facilitate the navigation of
tubular environments such as pipes and cables and prevalent structural shapes in industrial
buildings and infrastructure for inspection and monitoring tasks. Several works in the
past developed in-pipe robots [20,21] with various locomotion mechanisms such as worm-
like [22], walk-type [23], wheel-base [24], screw-type [25], and snake-type [26]. Worm-
like robots that create anchoring forces that allow for a peristaltic wave, which creates
locomotion through acrylic pipes [20,27], are the most common type. On the other hand,
methods of traversing exterior tubular objects have also been considered; a comprehensive
review by Chattopadhyay et al. [21] surveys different locomotion methods of pipe-climbing
robots. However, most of these systems consist of traditional rigid robots that are bulky,
heavy, and high-cost [28–30]. The study concluded that by applying a hybrid system, robots
can overcome the problem of motion singularity, especially when steering or navigating
complex structures. In addition, biologically inspired robots [31] can address the limitations.
Inspired by the vertical tree climbing locomotion of natural snakes as shown in Figure 1a,
for example, Python reticulatus climbing with a variant of concertina locomotion [32–34], this
work demonstrates the capabilities of a pneumatically actuated soft robot with combined
locomotion and grasping features as shown in Figure 1b as a new concept for locomotion along
exterior tubular structures while inspecting the structure in close proximity. The design and
fabrication procedures of the proposed soft robot with simultaneous locomotion and grasping
capabilities, a low weight, and a high power-to-weight ratio are presented. Soft actuators
associated with grasping (fabric-based inflatable actuator) and locomotion were characterized.
The robot was prototyped, and its locomotion was tested successfully in a laboratory setting
for vertical and up-and-down curve navigation. Our contribution can be listed as follows:
(1) a fully soft robot design is developed with combined grasping and locomotion capabilities,
(2) the presented soft robot can adapt its locomotion to a variety of tubular structures with
different configurations and topologies, such as curved, vertical, near vertical, and horizontal,
right angles and pole, cable, and rope wire, and (3) a lightweight design with safe and reliable
working with very high force-to-weight ratio actuators that result in a robot with a low cost of
transport (CoT) compared to its rigid conventional counterparts [1].
Machines 2024, 12, 157 3 of 19

Figure 1. A natural snake climbs a tree through a repetitive movement that includes grasping and
contraction of its body. Three phases of climbing: (a) after full body contraction, (b) grasping at
the proximal segment and extension of the body, (c) grasping at both proximal and distal ends and
beginning of contraction [32]; and (d) the presented bioinspired soft grasping and crawling locomotor
robot with two grasping elements at the proximal and distal ends marked by red boxes as well as an
extension/contraction element at the middle segment marked by a blue box.

The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 includes the system description,
the design consideration of the soft robots, the prototyping process, the control system
design, and the testing and demonstration of the robot’s capabilities. Section 2.1 describes
the overall system of the soft robot, its components, and the combined grasping and
crawling locomotor concept. In Section 2.2, the designing and prototyping of the soft
robot are discussed, which includes the theoretical model of the geometry of the soft fabric
actuator design in terms of the design parameters presented in Section 2.2.1 and the details
of the soft fabric actuators and the elastomer-based fabrication of the expandable locomotor
actuators in Section 2.2.2. Moreover, in Section 2.3, the electro-pneumatic-based control
of the soft robot, including both hardware and algorithm, is discussed. Section 3 presents
the results of the experimental testing on the locomotion of the soft robot navigating two
structures’ configurations. Finally, Section 4 discusses the findings of this study, the power
consumption calculation and determining the cost of transportation, alternative approaches
to improve the robot’s locomotion performance, and the limitations of the system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. System Description
This work presents a soft robot designed to move across tubular structures such as
cables, pipes, and tubes. The robot is composed of three sections: the proximal section with
a soft grasping element called a grabber/holder actuator (G/HA); the middle section with
three ePSAs; and the distal section with a second G/HA. Figure 2 demonstrates the robot’s
sequences of grabbing and crawling movements along a tubular structure. The robot’s
movement involves four repeating steps, starting with air pressure entering the proximal
section, then the middle section, and finally the distal section. The robot then releases air
pressure from the proximal section and middle section before reintroducing pressure into
the proximal section and releasing air pressure from the distal section. This cycle repeats
until the robot has traveled the desired distance along the desired structure. Soft robots
are susceptible to material failures and ruptures, and therefore this robot is designed to be
fully modular and can be easily disassembled. Each ePSA can be separated and replaced
from its connecting point on the G/HAs, and each G/HA can be separated into three soft
fabric actuators (SFAs). This feature allows the user to replace any damaged component
with minimal effort and also aids in attaching the robot to tubular structures. The robot is
Machines 2024, 12, 157 4 of 19

hollow along its center to allow the tubular structure to pass through it. Since the G/HAs
are made up of easy-to-disassemble SFAs, the user only needs to separate the connection
between the two SFAs on each end to place the robot over the tubular structure before
re-closing the connection on the SFAs. This soft robot is not constructed with standard rigid
robot parts, which means its actuators can be resized to fit along any tubular structure by
using larger bladders, sleeves, and SFAs. It is scalable for use along any object similar in
shape to a cable.

normal length
inflate/hold hold

Step 1:

hold inflate/extend

Step 2:

deflate/release

deflate/release hold inflate/hold

Step 3:

deflate/contract hold

Step 4:

normal length
inflate/hold hold

Back to step 1:

Figure 2. A schematic demonstrating the sequences of the locomotion of the soft robot, including
body grasping/releasing and extension/contraction.

2.2. Design and Prototyping

The design considerations include (1) the minimum grasping force for the textile-based
inflatable bladders to carry the overall weight of the robot without slippage while adapting
to the varying size of the tubular object (inner diameter), (2) the optimal displacement
and the rate of displacement of the elastomeric extensible actuator for achieving a feasible
speed of navigation while still staying flexible enough to adapt to varying shapes and
the curvature path of tubular structures, and (3) being light-weight, having a low cost of
transportation, and having safe interactions with the exterior surface of structures.

2.2.1. Fabric-Based Soft Actuators for the Grasping Action

Due to their high strength-to-weight ratio, high load-carrying capacity, and range
of achievable actuation modalities, pneumatically actuated fabric-based or textile-based
soft robots and actuators have been increasingly developed for use in several applications,
including soft wearable robots [35,36], soft robotic grippers [37,38], linear and angular motor
pouches [39], and programmable bending deformation [40]. In this work, thermoplastic
polyurethane (TPU)-coated fabric (Seattle Fabrics Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) with a Young’s
modulus of 127.81 MPa [37] was utilized to make the inflatable air cells for the proximal
and distal G/HA elements of the robot. The material withstands higher pressures and does
not exhibit continuous expansion compared to the prevailing rubbery/elastomer-based soft
actuators. Thus, it generates a larger force needed for interaction with tubular structures,
Machines 2024, 12, 157 5 of 19

providing potentially high friction/adhesion forces with varying surfaces of the structure,
and grasps firmly to hold the robot in place.
Figure 3a,b show a single SFA air cell before inflation and after inflation, respectively.
Each air cell is cut from fabric with a length of L and a width of W 0 . After inflation,
the length is constant, but the air cell contacts laterally, so it has a current width of W.
The geometry of the cross-section of each inflated air cell, as shown in Figure 3b, can be
described as follows:

W0 = 2rθ (1)
W = 2r sin θ (2)
h = r (1 − cos θ ) (3)

where r, θ, and h are the radius of the arc, the half angle of the arc, and the distance from
the center line of each air cell to the peak of the arc. The volume of the chamber can be
obtained by
V = r2 L(θ − cos θ sin θ ). (4)
Figure 3c shows the forces acting on each SFA. We can write the balance of forces
acting on each air cell as follows:

PLW − F − 2 f sin θ = 0 (5)

where P is the gauge pressure, L is the length of the chamber, and W is the current width of
the air cells after inflation. As shown in Figure 3c, F is the external force exerted on each
SFA by the tubular structure and f is the tension force, which is given by

f = σθ tL, (6)

where t is the thickness of the fabric or the wall thickness of the air cell chamber, and σθ is the
circumferential stress in the fabric and can be calculated based on the virtual cross-section
of the area at the end side of the chamber as follows:
Ph
σθ = , (7)
t
h is given by Equation (3). Substituting Equations (7) and (1)–(3) into Equation (5) yields

sin(θ ) cos(θ )
F = PLW0 (8)
θ
Considering the air cell as a thin-wall chamber and the material constitutive model of
the fabric as an isotropic elastic material (Hook’s law), the axial stress σL , radial stress σr ,
and circumferential strain ε θ can be obtained as follows:

Pr2 (θ − cos θ sin θ )

σL = (9)
2W0 t
σr = 0 (10)
1 ν ν
ε θ = σθ − σr − σL = 0 (11)
E E E
where ν is Poisson’s ratio (≈0.4 for the nylon fabric) and E is Young’s modulus of the
fabric, and we assume that there are no stretches in the fabric width, which results in no
circumferential strain. Solving for σθ from Equations (9)–(11) gives

Pr2 (θ − cos θ sin θ )

σθ = νσL = ν . (12)
2W0 t
Machines 2024, 12, 157 6 of 19

W W W
(a) (b)
h
W

L θ θ r
W

F
(c) F
p
θ θ
f f

(d)
n=4 n=3

Figure 3. A single SFA air cell (a) before inflation and (b) after inflation; (c) forces acting on SFA
during the contact with exterior of a tubular structure, and (d) examples of the G/HA element with
three and four air cells conforming around the exterior of a tubular structure.

By comparing Equations (7) and (12), r and h can be obtained as follows:

2W0 (1 − cos(θ ))
r= (13)
ν (θ − cos θ sin θ )
2W0 (1 − cos(θ ))2
h= . (14)
ν (θ − cos θ sin θ )

Figure 3d shows examples of the G/HA element with three and four air cells con-
forming around the exterior of a structure; the geometrical configuration dictates that the
diameter of the tubular structure is given by
n
d= W0 − 4h (15)
π
Machines 2024, 12, 157 7 of 19

where n is the total number of air cells. On the other hand, the anti-slippery condition
during holding/grasping by the air cell requires that
mg
≤F (16)
nµ

where mg is the total weight of the soft robot and µ is the friction coefficient. Equation (16)
indicates a constraint on the minimum grip force and actuation pressure.
Based on the theoretical models derived in Section 2.2.1 for the SFA and G/HA,
the design parameters include the material, initial dimensions (i.e., length and width),
number of air cells, actuation pressure, and range of diameters of the structure that G/HA
wraps around.

2.2.2. Prototype
As shown in Figure 4, the soft robot comprises two main components: the extensible
pneumatic soft actuator (ePSA) and the G/HA. The G/HA is created by attaching three
SFAs with hook and loop fasteners, as shown in Figure 4. Each SFA is made of plastic fabric
on one side, allowing a heat sealer to melt two plastic sides together. To create each SFA,
first cut out a rectangle of plastic fabric that is 60 mm wide and 200 mm long, with a flap
on one side that is 30 mm wide by 160 mm long and lies 20 mm above the base of the larger
rectangle. Fold the rectangle in half so that the plastic sides are touching each other, which
creates a shape that is L = 100 mm in length. Next, place the fabric on a sealer and seal
each side of the larger rectangle from the inside out, where the air pressure will be held.
Seal the side flap, but it does not need to be airtight. Cut a hole in the middle of the top of
the larger rectangle, and insert surgical tubing through the hole with at least 20 mm inside
the pouch and 30 mm outside. Seal the areas around the tubing with hot glue, and adhere
the tube to the SFA.

Figure 4. A prototype of the soft robot, including body grasping/releasing and extension/contraction
modules.

To make the G/HA, cut 50 mm lengths of hook and loop fasteners and attach the hook
side to the extending flap of the SFA. Position the SFA so the flap points to the left before
attaching the hooks to the fabric. Flip the SFA over and adhere the loop side to the left side
of the SFA (where there is no flap) at the same height as the flap. With the hooks facing
upward, use cyanoacrylate glue to adhere a stick to the right side of the SFA. The stick
should be 100 mm tall, 7 mm in diameter, and extend 14 mm above the SFA. This is where
the ePSAs will attach to the G/HA. Assemble the G/HA by attaching three SFAs with
hook and loop fasteners, ensuring that the tube on each SFA points in the same direction.
Once two G/HAs are made, place the ends of each PAM on the extended sticks and attach
them using a hose clamp. Repeat this procedure for both ends of the PAM to connect both
G/HAs. The connector end of each PAM should face in the same direction and be exposed
for easy access when connecting them to the air valve.
Additionally, extensible pneumatic soft actuators (ePSAs) for integration with the
robotic platform were developed and tested, as shown in Figure 5. The key steps included:
Machines 2024, 12, 157 8 of 19

(1) Mold design and printing: 3D molds for the ePSAs were designed using CAD software,
ensuring precise dimensions and tolerances to achieve the desired actuator shapes and
performance. The casting molds were printed using an SLA 3D printer (Form 3, Formlabs,
Somerville, MA, USA) with clear resin, known for its accuracy and ability to produce
high-quality molds for casting elastomers. (2) ePSA casting: EcoFlex 00-50, a soft and
flexible silicone material, was chosen for casting the ePSAs due to its suitable elongation
and strength properties. ePSAs were cast, incorporating a different type of reinforcing
material to explore their effects on performance, including Kevlar line (Figure 5d), Super
Slick V2 10 lb weight test fishing line (Figure 5e), and Super Slick V2 20 lb weight test
fishing line (Figure 5e). (3) Elongation vs. pressure testing: each ePSA type was tested to
measure its elongation (stretch) under varying pressure loads. These data were essential for
understanding the actuators’ force–displacement characteristics and suitability for specific
applications in the soft robotic system. (4) Adapter design and fabrication: custom adapters,
the gray color caps shown in Figure 4, were designed and printed using the Formlabs
printer to seamlessly integrate the ePSAs with the soft robot. These adapters ensured
proper alignment and attachment of the actuators, enabling effective force transmission
and movement control.

Figure 5. Extensible pneumatic soft actuator (ePSA): (a) 3D-printed casting mold for making
(b) untrimmed elastomer-based soft actuator right after demolding, (c) inflated soft actuator, (d) ePSA
reinforced with Kevlar line, (e) ePSA reinforced with Super Slick V2 10 lb weight test (fishing line),
and (f) ePSA reinforced with Super Slick V2 20 lb weight test (fishing line).
Machines 2024, 12, 157 9 of 19

2.3. Control System: Hardware and Algorithm

Like many other soft robots, the presented robotic system uses a pneumatic control
board to control its movement. The electro-pneumatic control system designed for the
robot’s operation is illustrated in Figure 6. The control board regulates pressurized air from
the pneumatic airline to each robot section. An Arduino board is used as the microcontroller
to control the operation of the electronic and pneumatic components. The prototype of the
control board is shown in Figure 5. The pneumatic logic of the controller uses a combination
of 2-way and 3-way solenoid valves to inflate individual sections of the soft robot that
correspond to the repeating seven steps required for movement, as shown in Figure 2. Each
section of the robot has a 2-way valve, a 3-way valve, and a pressure sensor, as illustrated
in Figure 6. Pressurized air from the main valve is sent to each 3-way valve, and the air
pressure is delivered to a specific section of the soft robot. When that section of the robot is
inflated to the necessary air pressure, the 3-way valve will maintain that pressure until the
next step in the movement cycle. At this point, the air from the section will be released back
through the 3-way valve into the 2-way valve. Here, the 2-way valve will release that air
into the atmosphere and then close again, ready for the next time air needs to flow through
the 3-way valve into the robot. A schematic of the control diagram with the pneumatic and
electronic connections for the two grasping SFA components and three ePSA elements is
shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Electro-pneumatic controller hardware for operation of the soft crawling robot.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 10 of 19

Figure 7. Schematic of the controller diagram.

2.4. Testing and Demonstration

The soft actuators responsible for the crawling locomotor (i.e., ePSA) were experimen-
tally characterized for three reinforcement materials. The displacement was measured for a
range of pressure actuation. In addition, the time response of the solenoid valves in the
opening and closing stages was tested. The soft robot, shown in Figure 4, was tested on
a horizontal tubular path line to determine the average speed compared to the previous
prototype’s performance [4]. Finally, the soft navigation of two different configurations of
the tubular structure was demonstrated, including (1) downhill and uphill navigation of a
curved path and (2) vertical movement up and down a straight path.

3. Results
The soft robot’s grasping and locomotor elements are characterized. The ePSA-based
soft robot’s locomotion was tested in laboratory settings by attaching it to a tubular structure
(cable) in two different configurations: (1) traversing a curved path uphill and downhill,
and (2) traversing a vertical path up and down. The robot traverses along the cable
using the actuation sequences designed in the proposed algorithm. The locomotion was
recorded over time, and the results were collected for further analyses, design optimization,
and control algorithm modification.

3.1. Soft Actuator Characterization

Initial testing of ePSA variations (Figure 5d–f) indicated that the Kevlar coil form was
the preferred actuator for the soft robot’s movement. It created a displacement that was
45% longer than its original length as shown in Figure 8. While the other two variations
extended by 50% of their original length, they required 8 and 9 psi to inflate to their optimal
length, while the Kevlar coil form only required 7 psi (48.3 kPa). With limitations to the
valves that currently control airflow to the soft robot, the 45% increased length at 7 psi
(48.3 kPa) was the superior option.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 11 of 19

Figure 8. Comparison of the displacement versus actuation pressure for three different variations
of ePSA.

The air cells can theoretically achieve a maximum angle of θmax = π2 that leads to
rmin = hmax = Wπ0 , the minimum radius and maximum height of the arc of the chamber,
respectively. The required maximum pressure is P = Et(π − 2), which is based on the ma-
terial properties of the selected fabrics (E = 127.81 MPa) and their thickness (t = 0.3 mm),
thus the maximum actuation pressure is 43.8 kPa. However, experimental observations
showed that the air cells can only achieve a maximum height of 50% of the theoretical
one, i.e., hmax ≈ W 0
2π . Also, in order to grasp a larger range of diameter, there is a trade-off
between the minimum pressure for the required grip force and greater height. For a friction
coefficient of µ = 0.1, the current soft robot with three air cells (n = 3) requires a grip force
F of at least 3.27 N. Given the length L = 100 mm and width W0 = 30 mm of each SFA in
the G/HA, the required pressure is P = 28.0 kPa. The current soft robot can grasp a cable
with a maximum diameter of d = 45 mm. Due to the deformation of the SFA around the
cable, the actual diameter can go up to 60 mm for the current design.

3.2. Solenoid Valve Response Time Characterization

The time it takes for a solenoid valve to transition from an open to a closed position or
vice versa is known as its response time. It is important to note that the response time differs
when energizing or de-energizing a solenoid valve, particularly when using an alternating
current. To determine the response time for solenoid valves, the European Fluid Power
Committee (C.E.T.O.P.) has established a standard measurement procedure. However, it is
worth noting that some valve manufacturers may use different definitions or measurement
procedures. When opening the valve, the response time is the duration between energizing
the solenoid and reaching 90% of the stabilized outlet pressure. The response time for closing
the valve is defined as the duration from de-energizing the solenoid until the pressure drops
to 10% of the test pressure. The test is conducted using air at 6 bars at 20 ◦ C.

3.3. Soft Robot Average Speed Comparison

The first generation of our soft robot [4] traversed with an average speed of 0.257 cm/s.
With the implementation of ePSA (the Kevlar coil), the soft robot was found to traverse at
an average speed of 0.202 cm/s. This outcome shows a reduction in the speed of the soft
robot, even though the displacement after a single cycle for the ePSA-based soft robot is
5 cm. In contrast, a displacement of 1.27 cm was achieved for the McKibben pneumatic
artificial muscle-based soft robot. Discrepancies in speed were caused by a non-optimal
Machines 2024, 12, 157 12 of 19

pneumatic control board programming algorithm and the bending in ePSA due to its
weight, which is higher than McKibben PAM. To address the former issue, a series of
modifications were applied to the control algorithms, including changing the timing and
sequences of the inflation and deflation of the combined grasping–crawling locomotor as
well as the actuation pressure of ePSA. For the timing, the time to inflate (TTI) and deflate
(TTD) was set to 1 s.
Additionally, the following algorithm of sequences was applied: Step (1) Inflate
the proximal SFA, deflate the distal, and halfway through the proximal inflation, begin
the middle ePSA’s inflation. Step (2) Inflate the distal SFA and deflate the proximal SFA and
middle ePSA halfway through the distal inflation. These modifications resulted in a 94.6%
increase in the soft robot’s average speed (0.5 cm/s) compared to the McKibben-based soft
robot [4]. We also noticed that the proximal G/HA slips back when ePSAs deflate and pull
the back segment forward, and the proximal G/HA drags when pulled forward. Increasing
the gripping force of the SFA helped to increase the average speed to 0.61 cm/s (a 137.3%
increase). Moreover, by increasing the inflation pressure of the ePSA from 8.5 psi to 9.0 psi
(56.0 kPa), the average speed reached 0.641 cm/s, 149.4% faster than the McKibben-based
soft robot locomotion.

3.4. Downhill and Uphill Navigation of a Curved Tubular Structure

The total distance traveled was 1.59 m in 4.63 min, with an average speed of 5.72 mm/s,
and compared to the downhill-only 250 mm traverse, which had an average speed of
6.41 mm/s, it was 10.8% slower. The soft robot did not show any difficulty in going
downhill or uphill, but it did take a long time to traverse such a tight curve. Since the
ePSA struggled to elongate straight along this curve, we expect that the addition of stabi-
lizing fixtures along the length of the ePSA will fix the problem and increase the speed.
Figure 9a–i shows the snapshots of the soft robot’s combined grasping and crawling loco-
motion along the curved path. The full video of the robot’s locomotion is available in the
Supplementary Files, Video S1.

Figure 9. Snapshots of locomotion of the soft inflatable crawling robot (a–e) downhill and (e–i) uphill,
i.e., traversing a curved tubular path.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 13 of 19

3.5. Vertical Up and Down Navigation

The distance covered was 153 cm in 3 min 22 s (going down) and 153 cm in 3 min 24 s
(going up). The average speed was 7.54 mm/s for the full trip, while the speed going down
was 7.57 mm/s and going up was 7.5 mm/s. The change comparing going downhill and
then uphill to going downhill only for the first 250 mm of the traverse was 17.6% faster.
The soft robot had no trouble going either straight down or straight up and was
actually faster doing this than when it was moving along a curve. Figure 10a–f shows the
snapshots of the soft robot’s locomotion exterior during the up-and-down navigation of a
vertical path. The full video of the robot’s locomotion is available in the Supplementary
Files, Video S2. The pressure variations in each segment of the soft robot are shown
in Figure 11. The results show that the fabric-based air cells can be fully expanded in
approximately 500 ms. This rapid response is due to the fact that the input pressure
mainly inflates the fabric chamber rather than stretching the material to generate elastic
deformation, as opposed to the situation for elastomeric/rubbery materials. The actuation
speed is mainly restricted by the flow rate of the pneumatic system, i.e., valves and tubing
length, as well as the size of the air cells. The actuation speed can be further enhanced by
shortening the length of tubes, using high-frequency solenoid valves, and reducing the
effective volume of the chamber. Figure 11c shows the cyclic actuation pattern of the ePSA,
with an average time of 2.85 s for full extension and 5.5 s for full contraction. The contraction
phase happens passively, whereas the extension is actively driven by pressurized air. Thus,
the speed of contraction fully depends on the material’s dynamic response. Additionally,
the results show a difference in the pressure profiles of the proximal and distal G/HAs,
as shown in Figure 11a,b. During our tuning of the control system’s specific sequences of
timing for the locomotion of the soft actuator, as shown in Figure 12, in order to achieve
a greater forward speed, we realized that a faster inflation/deflation process of the front
G/HA combined with the simultaneous expansion of the ePSA leads to a faster forward
movement of the robot, while a slower inflation/deflation of the back G/HA helps with the
stability of forward movement without any noticeable slipping back movements during the
compression of the ePSA modules. Moreover, in each cycle of locomotion, the front (distal)
G/HA is actively pushed by the ePSA while the back (proximal) G/HA is passively pulled
by the ePSA, which causes two different time responses and different pressure profiles
for the distal and proximal G/HA. This difference in timing is illustrated in Figure 12
using the state number and arrows, in which the length is the relative duration of the
transition between the states. The back G/HA has three states during each cycle, while
the front G/HA has four states and the ePSA has two states, as labeled by color-coded
numbers. The horizontal location between the states of each element shows the relative
timing of operation of the distal, proximal, and middle actuators. The results show that
the controller was able to provide a consistent cyclic pattern of required pressure for the
successful straight down and up locomotion of the soft robot, as shown in Figure 10.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 14 of 19

Figure 10. Snapshots of locomotion of the soft inflatable crawling robot vertically (a–f) from up to
down, i.e., traversing a vertical tubular path.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 15 of 19

Figure 11. Measured pressure of the three soft segments of the crawling robot during its cyclic locomotion.

Figure 12. Comparison of timing sequences of actuation pressure of the three soft segments of the
crawling robot during its cyclic locomotion. States of pressure actuation are marked by numbers for
each segment.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 16 of 19

4. Discussion
Cost of Transportation: Compared to conventional (rigid) climbing robots [5], our
soft robot has a significantly lower cost of transportation for carrying out similar tasks.
For example, CCRobot-I [41] has a total mass of 15 kg and traverses the cable vertically at
a speed of 0.05 m/s. For climbing a distance of 1 m, this locomotion requires a power of
7.4 W. While our soft robot, with a total mass of 0.1 kg and a speed of 0.008 m/s, traverses
a vertical distance of 1 m with only 0.0079 W. This is a reduction of about 937-fold, which
emphasizes the significance of using a light-weight soft body design and soft actuators
with a high force-to-weight ratio. Other rigid climbing robots [1] with larger weights and
higher speeds need more power to carry out the same task.
Navigation versatility: Most conventional inspection robots are designed and devel-
oped for carrying out a specific task with a single locomotion mode that leads to navigating
a straight vertical path or close to a vertical path. In contrast, the presented soft robot
with inherent compliance and flexibility can navigate various path configurations, such as
vertical and curved paths, as demonstrated in this work (see Figures 9 and 10).
Payload: Conventional inspection robots have shown a very high payload capacity,
in the range of 8 to 40 kg [1,5,41]; compared to the total mass of the robots, we can
estimate a payload-to-weight ratio of about 0.67 to 2. With the current range of actuation
pressure, 0–4 psi (0–28.0 kPa), the presented soft robot in this work can carry a payload
more than three times its own weight. Although the payload-to-weight ratio exceeds that of
conventional robots, the payload capacity is significantly smaller than that of conventional
inspection robots. The payload capacity can be increased by increasing the number of air
cells and ePSA middle actuators. Note that increasing this actuator will cause an increase
in the required pneumatic components and thus increase the robot’s weight as well.
Locomotion performance: Compared to our first soft robot generation [4], the per-
formance of the soft robot locomotion has significantly improved (three-fold increase in
average speed). However, the achieved speed (approximately 8.0 mm/s) is still lower
than that of conventional inspection robots (between 50 and 300 mm/s). To address this
limitation, using a higher actuation pressure, solenoid valves with a higher operation
frequency, and active contraction for the ePSA would improve the performance. The differ-
ence between the active extension and passive contraction, as shown in Figure 12, causes
the need to plan different timings for actuation of the distal and the proximal G/HA, thus
achieving slower locomotion. A miniature pressurizing/vacuuming pump enables the soft
robot’s active contraction and faster locomotion motion.

5. Conclusions
This paper presents a soft robot that combines soft-body grasping with crawling
locomotion to navigate tubular objects. The robot includes proximal and distal modules
for grasping around objects and a driving module for bi-directional crawling movement.
The robot was made using advanced and conventional manufacturing techniques and was
tested in a laboratory setting to navigate a cable. The robot demonstrated its capability
to navigate cables in vertical, horizontal, and curved path scenarios, with a three-fold
improvement in forward speed compared to the initial design.
In future work, the design and prototyping of shape-morphing soft-bodied mecha-
nisms will be studied to facilitate traversing over or through typical obstacles found on
tubular structures while integrating portable sensors with remote/wireless communication
for data collection. Additionally, research into the use of miniature pumps and portable
batteries will be conducted to enable the operation of the soft robot outside of a laboratory
environment. This would result in a portable and functional robot for testing in the field.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
eltnmsu-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/mahdihj_nmsu_edu/EnJyTuT2Og1FszZASajpqHsBDvvd3
MLiUexz2-GRMfMRLw?e=Pui3GF (accessed on 29 December 2023), Video S1: Downhill and uphill
navigation of a curved tubular structure; Video S2: Vertical up and down navigation.
Machines 2024, 12, 157 17 of 19

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.M. and M.H.-J.; methodology, N.M. and M.H.-J.; soft-
ware, N.M.; validation, N.M.; formal analysis, N.M.; investigation, N.M. and M.H.-J.; resources,
M.H.-J.; data curation, N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M. and M.H.-J.; writing—review
and editing, M.H.-J.; visualization, N.M.; supervision, M.H.-J.; project administration, M.H.-J.; fund-
ing acquisition, M.H.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The first author, Nicolás Mendoza, was supported by the New Mexico Alliance for Minority
Participation (AMP): Undergraduate Research Scholar (URS) funded by National Science Foundation
(NSF) grant No. HRD-1826758.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be provided upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

G/HA Grabber/holder actuator

C.E.T.O.P. European Fluid Power Committee
ePSA Extensible pneumatic soft actuator
SFA Soft fabric actuator
TTI Time to inflate
TTD Time to deflate

References
1. Fang, G.; Cheng, J. Advances in Climbing Robots for Vertical Structures in the Past Decade: A Review. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 47.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Katrasnik, J.; Pernus, F.; Likar, B. A survey of mobile robots for distribution power line inspection. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2009,
25, 485–493. [CrossRef]
3. Katrasnik, J.; Pernus, F.; Likar, B. New robot for power line inspection. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Conference on Robotics,
Automation and Mechatronics, Chengdu, China, 21–24 September 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 1195–1200.
4. Mendoza, N.; Nemati, H.; Haghshenas-Jaryani, M.; Dehghan-Niri, E. An Inflatable Soft Crawling Robot with Nondestructive
Testing Capability for Overhead Power Line Inspection. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA, 30 October–3 November 2022; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New
York, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 86670, p. V005T07A021.
5. Fang, Y.; Wang, S.; Bi, Q.; Cui, D.; Yan, C. Design and Technical Development of Wall-Climbing Robots: A Review. J. Bionic Eng.
2022, 19, 877–901. [CrossRef]
6. Megalingam, R.K.; Sakthiprasad, K.; Sreekanth, M.; Vivek, G.V. A survey on robotic coconut tree climbers–existing methods and
techniques. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 225, 012201. [CrossRef]
7. Seo, T.; Jeon, Y.; Park, C.; Kim, J. Survey on Glass And Façade-Cleaning Robots: Climbing Mechanisms, Cleaning Methods, and
Applications. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2019, 6, 367–376. [CrossRef]
8. Cai, S.; Ma, Z.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Bao, S. Construction automation and robotics for high-rise buildings over the past decades: A
comprehensive review. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019, 42, 100989. [CrossRef]
9. Bogue, R. Climbing robots: Recent research and emerging applications. Ind. Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl. 2019, 46, 721–727.
[CrossRef]
10. Hou, S.; Dong, B.; Wang, H.; Wu, G. Inspection of surface defects on stay cables using a robot and transfer learning. Autom.
Constr. 2020, 119, 103382. [CrossRef]
11. Shah, D.; Yang, B.; Kriegman, S.; Levin, M.; Bongard, J.; Kramer-Bottiglio, R. Shape Changing Robots: Bioinspiration, Simulation,
and Physical Realization. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2002882. [CrossRef]
12. Cianchetti, M.; Calisti, M.; Margheri, L.; Kuba, M.; Laschi, C. Bioinspired locomotion and grasping in water: The soft eight-arm
OCTOPUS robot. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2015, 10, 035003. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Lopez, M.; Haghshenas-Jaryani, M. A Muscle-Driven Mechanism for Locomotion of Snake-Robots. Automation 2022, 3, 1–26.
[CrossRef]
14. Lopez, M.; Haghshenas-Jaryani, M. A Study of Energy-Efficient and Optimal Locomotion in a Pneumatic Artificial Muscle-Driven
Snake Robot. Robotics 2023, 12, 89. [CrossRef]
Machines 2024, 12, 157 18 of 19

15. Yin, A.; Lin, H.C.; Thelen, J.; Mahner, B.; Ranzani, T. Combining locomotion and grasping functionalities in soft robots. Adv.
Intell. Syst. 2019, 1, 1900089. [CrossRef]
16. Sanfilippo, F. Combining grasping with adaptive path following and locomotion for modular snake robots. Int. J. Mech. Eng.
Robot. Res. 2022, 11, 59–65. [CrossRef]
17. Salvietti, G.; Zhang, H.X.; Gonzalez-Gòmez, J.; Prattichizzo, D.; Zhang, J.W. Task priority grasping and locomotion control of
modular robot. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Guilin, China,
19–23 December 2009; pp. 1069–1074. [CrossRef]
18. Asfour, T.; Borrás, J.; Mandery, C.; Kaiser, P.; Aksoy, E.E.; Grotz, M. On the dualities between grasping and whole-body
loco-manipulation tasks. Robot. Res. 2018, 2, 305–322.
19. Chen, S.; Cao, Y.; Sarparast, M.; Yuan, H.; Dong, L.; Tan, X.; Cao, C. Soft Crawling Robots: Design, Actuation, and Locomotion.
Adv. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 1900837. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, B.; Fan, Y.; Yang, P.; Cao, T.; Liao, H. Worm-Like Soft Robot for Complicated Tubular Environments. Soft Robot. 2019,
6, 399–413. [CrossRef]
21. Chattopadhyay, P.; Ghoshal, S.; Majumder, A.; Dikshit, H. Locomotion Methods of Pipe Climbing robots: A Review. J. Eng. Sci.
Technol. Rev. 2018, 11, 154–165. [CrossRef]
22. Roh, S.g.; Choi, H.R. Differential-drive in-pipe robot for moving inside urban gas pipelines. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2005, 21, 1–17.
23. Yousef, B.F.; Bastaki, N. Worm robot with dynamic adaptation to pipe diameter for in-pipe inspection. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol.
2014, 3, 286–292.
24. Xu, Z.L.; Lu, S.; Yang, J.; Feng, Y.H.; Shen, C.T. A wheel-type in-pipe robot for grinding weld beads. Adv. Manuf. 2017, 5, 182–190.
[CrossRef]
25. Li, P.; Ma, S.; Lyu, C.; Jiang, X.; Liu, Y. Energy-efficient control of a screw-drive pipe robot with consideration of actuator’s
characteristics. Robot. Biomim. 2016, 3, 11. [CrossRef]
26. Wakimoto, S.; Nakajima, J.; Takata, M.; Kanda, T.; Suzumori, K. A micro snake-like robot for small pipe inspection. In Proceedings
of the MHS2003, 2003 International Symposium on Micromechatronics and Human Science (IEEE Cat. No. 03TH8717), Nagoya,
Japan, 19–22 October 2003; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 303–308.
27. Cianciarulo, F.; Garbulinski, J.; Chambers, J.; Pillsbury, T.; Wereley, N.; Cross, A.; Trivedi, D. Analysis of an anchoring muscle for
pipe crawling robot. In Proceedings of the SPIE Smart Structures + Nondestructive Evaluation, Long Beach, CA, USA, 12–17
March 2023; Volume 12481, p. 1248108. [CrossRef]
28. Han, S.C.; An, J.; Moon, H. A remotely controlled out-pipe climbing robot. In Proceedings of the 2013 10th International
Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 30 October–2 November 2013; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; p. 126.
29. Baghani, A.; Ahmadabadi, M.N.; Harati, A. Kinematics modeling of a wheel-based pole climbing robot (UT-PCR). In Proceedings
of the Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 18–22 April 2005;
IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2005, pp. 2099–2104.
30. Mampel, J.; Gerlach, K.; Schilling, C.; Witte, H. A modular robot climbing on pipe-like structures. In Proceedings of the 2009 4th
International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Wellington, New Zealand, 10–12 February 2009; IEEE: Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 87–91.
31. Adams, W. A Novel, Bio-Inspired, Soft Robot for Water Pipe Inspection. Master’s Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ,
USA, 2019.
32. Savidge, J.A.; Seibert, T.F.; Kastner, M.; Jayne, B.C. Lasso locomotion expands the climbing repertoire of snakes. Curr. Biol. 2021,
31, R7–R8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Jayne, B.C. What defines different modes of snake locomotion? Integr. Comp. Biol. 2020, 60, 156–170. [CrossRef]
34. Jayne, B.C.; Newman, S.J.; Zentkovich, M.M.; Berns, H.M. Why arboreal snakes should not be cylindrical: Body shape, incline
and surface roughness have interactive effects on locomotion. J. Exp. Biol. 2015, 218, 3978–3986. [CrossRef]
35. O’Neill, C.T.; McCann, C.M.; Hohimer, C.J.; Bertoldi, K.; Walsh, C.J. Unfolding Textile-Based Pneumatic Actuators for Wearable
Applications. Soft Robot. 2021, 9, 163–172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Nguyen, P.H.; Zhang, W. Design and Computational Modeling of Fabric Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Wearable Assistive Devices.
Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9638. [CrossRef]
37. Zhang, Z.; Long, Y.; Chen, G.; Wu, Q.; Wang, H.; Jiang, H. Soft and lightweight fabric enables powerful and high-range pneumatic
actuation. Sci. Adv. 2024, 9, eadg1203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Khin, P.M.; Yap, H.K.; Ang, M.H.; Yeow, C.H. Fabric-based actuator modules for building soft pneumatic structures with high
payload-to-weight ratio. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS),
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017; pp. 2744–2750. [CrossRef]
39. Niiyama, R.; Sun, X.; Sung, C.; An, B.; Rus, D.; Kim, S. Pouch Motors: Printable Soft Actuators Integrated with Computational
Design. Soft Robot. 2015, 2, 59–70. [CrossRef]
Machines 2024, 12, 157 19 of 19

40. Lee, H.; Oh, N.; Rodrigue, H. Expanding Pouch Motor Patterns for Programmable Soft Bending Actuation: Enabling Soft Robotic
System Adaptations. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2020, 27, 65–74. [CrossRef]
41. Zheng, Z.; Hu, S.; Ding, N. A Biologically Inspired Cable Climbing Robot: CCRobot—Design and Implementation. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12–15 December
2018; pp. 2354–2359. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.