2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
September 24–28, 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Snake Robots in Contact with the Environment: Influence of the
Friction on the Applied Wrench
Fabian Reyes1 , and Shugen Ma1
Abstract— Snake robots have been researched for locomotion
in unstructured environments due to its unique and adaptable
gaits, however, they have not been used to interact with the
environment in a dexterous manner, for example to grasp or
push an object. In this paper, the effect of both the configuration
of the snake robot (shape) and the friction between the snake
robot and ground on a wrench applied to another object are
studied. It is assumed that the snake robot has anisotropic
friction with the ground, a property that has been proved to be
essential for locomotion. The extreme cases of no friction and
ideal unbounded friction can be both studied at the same time,
making the model and conclusions very versatile and possible
to apply to any coefficient of friction. The model and metrics
are tested in a study case.
Index Terms— Snake robot, contact wrench, invariant metrics
I. I NTRODUCTION
Snake robots show a lot of promise regarding locomotion
in unstructured environments due to its potential adaptability
to the environment. It is of particular interest in Search
& Rescue (SAR) operations and environmental monitoring
where robots have to move in non-ideal situations [1], [2].
Literature regarding locomotion with snake robots is vast [3]
and several gaits have been implemented, mainly inspired
by biological snakes. Although snake robots could excel in
locomotion, it is not clear if they can be used to interact
with the environment (or an object) dexterously. Its structure
resembles a robotic manipulator but there are key differences
that have not been fully addressed in previous research. One
main difference is that a snake robot is a mobile robot; it
has a floating base which means it is underactuated. Unlike
a robotic manipulator with a fixed-base, the snake robot may
slip while interacting with an object, limiting the set of forces
that it can produce. Another key difference is that snake
robots may contact the environment at several points of its
body. Snake robots rely on the friction between its belly and
the ground to obtain propulsive forces for locomotion and
may be contacting the environment (e.g., a wall) at the same
time.
Because the kinematic structure of a snake robot resembles
a robotic arm, papers that deal with similar situations can
be found in existing literature. A more detailed analysis of
these papers can be found in [4], but the main point is that a
strict analysis of the interaction between a snake robot and
an object has not been presented, since the analysis have
1 Fabian Reyes and Shugen Ma are with the Depart-
ment of Robotics, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, 525-
8577, Japan, e-mail: Reyes.Fabian.2014@ieee.org,
shugen@se.ritsumei.ac.jp
978-1-5386-2682-5/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
been purely kinematic or a fixed base was assumed. More
recently, in [5] a snake robot used in a cutting task was
proposed, which is one of the few instances where a snake
robot has been used in a task not related to only locomotion.
To study the interaction between a robot and the environ-
ment or an object it is necessary to study the contact wrench
(force and torque) between them. In particular, it is necessary
to study the relationship between inputs (the robot’s joint
torques) and the wrenches exerted on external objects.
The main objective of this paper is to study the set of
contact forces that can be exerted onto an object and the
acceleration of the object produced by this interaction. This
is done while taking into account the friction between the
snake robot and the ground. It is interesting to verify if
this friction has a significant effect on the wrench that can
be applied to the object. In particular, we concentrate on
the effect of the configuration of the snake robot and the
influence of friction between the ground and snake robot.
This separates the problem into two; on one hand, we have
the interaction with an object which resembles the problem
of robotic grasping and manipulation. On the other hand, the
interaction with the environment resembles more the problem
of locomotion with legged robots. which is also related to
[6], [7]. To deal with snake robots with any number of joints,
we also propose a simple parameterization based on the polar
coordinates of its center of mass (COM).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II the
necessary mathematical background to understand this paper
is presented along with references necessary to develop the
concepts further. Section III is the main body of the paper;
the modeling of the system is presented and metrics and
quantities are derived. In Section IV a snake robot with two
joints is analyzed. Some comments regarding the presented
results, their implications and limitations, and future work
are presented in Section V. The paper concludes with some
remarks in Section VI.
II. M ATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND
In this section, we give a brief introduction to the mathe-
matical topics necessary to understand this paper. We recom-
mend [8]–[10] for a more detailed treatment. In particular,
the foundations of the model used in this paper have been
presented in [4]. As stressed in previous research, it is
important to guarantee invariance of metrics in order for the
results to be meaningful (e.g., metrics should not depend on
a the choice of reference frame). To help the analysis of
the system to lead to meaningful metrics, we employ dual
vectors [11] and basic differential geometry [8].
5790
A. Differential Geometry: Twists, Wrenches, and Metrics is a matrix that projects the vector of input forces τact
∗
into
A twist (concatenation of linear and angular veloc- the space of generalized forces. The matrix 1 denotes the
ity) υ ~ ∈ Mn can be expressed w.r.t. a covariant basis identity matrix of appropriate dimensions.
e = [~ ~ n ]T as υ
e1 , ..., e ~ = eT υ. The element υ ∈ <n can be
C. Unconstrained Model of an Object
interpreted as the contravariant components of υ ~ . A wrench
(concatenation of linear force and torque) f~ ∈ Fn can be A rigid-body is able to move in its operational space with
expressed w.r.t. a contravariant basis e∗ = [~ ~ ∗n ]T as
e∗1 , ..., e dimensions nop and its equations of motion can be compactly
~ ∗T ∗
f = e f and f ∈ < can be interpreted as the covariant
∗ n written as
components of f~. T  T 
e∗ Iobj aobj + p∗obj = e∗ fobj ∗
(6)
 
,
It is important to notice that both bases e and e∗ may not
be orthogonal, so the common definition of inner product where aobj , p∗obj , and fobj
∗
∈ <nop denote the acceleration,
(e.g., υ ·υ = υ T υ) would give incorrect results. Let’s denote velocity-produced terms, and total wrench acting on the
the metric tensor of the covariant basis as I = eeT and its body, respectively. Iobj ∈ Rnop ×nop denotes the inertia ten-
inverse by I −1 . The (squared) length of a twist and wrench sor of the rigid body. The mass of the object mobj will be
is an invariant quantity and can be obtained using the scalar denoted as a multiple of the mass of a link of the snake
product {◦} while taking into account the metric tensor as robot as mobj = κmi . In other words, κ is a proportionality
υ ||2 := υ
||~ ~ = υ T eeT υ = υ T Iυ,
~ ◦υ (1) coefficient relating the masses of interest.
T T
||f~||2 := f~ ◦ f~ = f ∗ e∗ e∗ f = f T I −1 f . (2) D. Kinematic Constraints Between Rigid Bodies

B. Unconstrained Model of the Snake Robot We assume there are nc ∈ N constraints between the snake
robot and the environment/objects. These contacts impose the
The snake robot can be modeled as a series of rigid following (implicit) kinematic constraints
links connected by revolute joints. All joints have their
axes parallel to each other, therefore the snake robot is T T (υobj − υi ) > 0 (7)
constrained to move on a plane (but is unconstrained in
any other way). The snake robot has a total of ns ∈ N between the i-th link and an object, where υi denotes
degrees of freedom (DOFs) and its generalized coordinates the twist of the contacting i-th link. The columns of the
are encapsulate in the vector qs (t) ∈ <ns . The first three matrix T ∈ <nop ×nc span the constraint force subspace at
coordinates account for the non-actuated DOFs of the float- the contact
T
ing base qna (t) = [x1 (t), y1 (t), θ1 (t)] ∈ <3×1 , where T
C = {f~c : f~c = e∗ fc∗ , fc∗ = T λ∗ ∀λ∗ }, (8)
the position of the floating base and its orientation w.r.t.
T
an inertial frame {N} are denoted as [x1 (t), y1 (t)] ∈ <2 where λ∗ parameterizes C. A basis for the constrained
and θ1 (t) ∈ <, respectively. There are na = ns − 3 subspace e∗c and constraint forces f~c can be written as
actuated DOFs (the joints of the snake robot) encapsu- T T
T
lated in the vector qa (t) = [φ1 (t), · · · , φna (t)] ∈ <na ×1 . e∗c = T T e∗ f~c = e∗ T λ∗ = e∗c λ∗ . (9)
The vector of generalized coordinates of the snake
robot is the concatenation of these last two vectors The mapping Gc := T T I −1 T represents the metric tensor
qs (t) = [qna (t)
T T
qa (t) ]T ∈ <ns ×1 . The snake robot has for the basis e∗c . This allows us to obtain the lengths of
~ 2 := λ∗T Gc λ∗ ).
constraint forces (i.e., ||λ||
n` = na + 1 links each with mass mi .
The Jacobian for the i-th link is a mapping from the vector
E. Friction Between the Snake Robot and Ground
of generalized velocities q̇s to the twist υi ∈ <3 of the link
and is denoted as Ji ∈ <3×ns It is common practice to introduce mechanical means for
snake robots to have anisotropic friction at the contacts with
υi = Ji q̇s . (3) the ground, something that has been proven essential for
The equations of motion of the snake robot can be locomotion [12], [13]. This is usually done by introducing
presented in the canonical form passive wheels with their respective non-slippage constraints
T T
(modeled as non-holonomic constraints in the form (7)).
e∗ [Ms q̈s + h∗s ] = e∗ [Bτact
∗ ∗
+ τext ] (4) However, these constraints are usually presented in their
unbounded form, and results are satisfactory for periodic
where Ms (qs ) ∈ <ns ×ns is the inertia matrix of the
motions. For other tasks it is important to consider the limit
snake robot (a symmetric positive definite (PD) matrix),
surfaces of the friction forces [14]. In this paper, we assume
h∗s (qs , q̇s ) ∈ <ns ×1 contains Coriolis and centripetal ef-
the snake robot has anisotropic friction with the ground and
fects, and τext ∗
(q, q̇) ∈ <ns ×1 is a vector of torques pro-
consider only friction in the direction perpendicular to the
duced by external forces (e.g., kinetic friction). The matrix
link. The constraint corresponding to the friction force acting
B ∈ <ns ×na defined as
  at the i-th link can be modeled as
03×na
B := , (5)
1na ×na T T Ji q̇s = 0 (10)

5791
with the additional constraints on the magnitude of the A. Projection onto the Constrained Space
constraint forces
The change from the contravariant basis e∗ to the basis of
|λ∗k | 6 mk gµs , (11) the constrained space e∗c can be obtained by using results
∗
presented in II. The projector ec Φe∗ : <n → <nc can be
where mk , g, and µs denote the mass of the link at the k-th
defined as
contact point, gravity acceleration, and coefficient of static
friction, respectively. The scalar λ∗k is k-th element of the e∗
c Φe∗ := (AI −1 AT )−1 AI −1 . (16)
constraint force vector.
In this paper we assume there are no friction forces acting The positive semidefinite (PSD) matrix (AI −1 AT ) repre-
on links interacting with an object or other rigid object (e.g., sents the metric tensor for the basis e∗c and has full rank if all
a wall). This can be achieved by lifting slightly the links or constraints are linearly independent. Under the assumptions
by other mechanical means (e.g., retractable wheels), similar discussed previously in the paper, this matrix will always
to the shape controllable points introduced in ( [15], [16]) or have full rank and will be invertible. Furthermore, the
to the division of the snake robot into two sections according mapping (16) can be interpreted as the left pseudo inverse
to their task [5]. of the matrix AT as
† †
F. Summary of Constraints AT := (AI −1 AT )−1 AI −1 → AT AT = 1. (17)
To facilitate the coupling between the snake robot and The constraint forces λ ~ can be obtained by projecting
environment/object(s) it is useful to put together all the the equations of motion (14) onto the constrained subspaces
constraints in vector/matrix form. All the constraints can be using the projector (16) and taking into account the constraint
put together into the following form (15) as
 
q̇s
T
(12)
 
A := −Js G , A > 0, e∗T ∗
c λ >
υobj h i
T† ∗
e∗T −A f + (AI −1 T −1
A ) (AI −1 ∗
p − Ȧυ) . (18)
where A ∈ <ns ×n is called the constraint matrix. c

Js ∈ <nc ×ns is called the robot Jacobian (also called

The right hand-side (RHS) of (18) is composed of two
hand Jacobian [14], [17]) which projects the vector of
terms. The first term depends purely on the set of forces
generalized velocities of the snake robot onto the constrained
exerted onto the system, either by the actuators of the snake
subspace. The matrix G ∈ <nop ×nc is usually referred to
robot or an external wrench exerted onto the object. The
as Grasp Matrix and its transpose is a mapping from the
second term includes terms produced by velocity and will
motion space of the object to the constrained subspace. The
vanish if the system starts from an equilibrium configuration.
constraint forces projected back onto the snake robot and
This (affine) system of equations is usually interpreted as a
object are  ∗  force ellipsoid [14], [18], [19] and it maps a quadratic region
−JsT

τc in the input space f~ to an ellipsoid in the output space of
= λ∗ = A T λ ∗ , (13)
fc∗ G ~ while the terms produced by velocity will
constraint forces λ,
where τc∗ ∈ <ns is simply the projection of the constraint shift the origin of such ellipsoid. In this paper, it is assumed
reaction force −fc∗ onto the space of generalized forces of the system starts from equilibrium so that the following linear
the snake robot and fc∗ ∈ <nop is the wrench acting on the mapping can be defined
object due to the constraints. ∗
λ∗ = −ec Φe∗ f ∗ . (19)
III. I NTERACTION B ETWEEN THE S NAKE ROBOT AND AN
The (squared) length of the vector of constraint forces can
O BJECT
be obtained by using its metric tensor as
Now that it is assumed that the snake robot is touching at
~ 2 = λ∗T (AI −1 AT )λ∗ = f ∗T (Ψe∗ ) f ∗ ,
||λ|| (20)
least one object, the new coupled equations of motion can
be written as
where the square matrix Ψe∗ ∈ <n×n is defined as
e∗T [Ia + p∗ ] = e∗T f ∗ + AT λ∗ , (14)
 
Ψe∗ := I −1 AT (AI −1 AT )−1 AI −1 . (21)

h∗s ∗ Now that a projector and norm has been defined for the
       
Ms 0 q̈s ∗ ∗ Bτact
I= a= p = ∗ f = ∗ unified model (14), it is convenient to expand it in order to
0 Iobj aobj pobj fobj
study the influence of each system onto the constraint forces
along the second-order constraints and its norm. The constraint forces, as a function of τact
∗
and
fobj can be written as
∗
Aa + Ȧυ > 0, (15)
 ∗   ∗ 
where equality holds for constraints imposed by friction. λ∗ > λ Φτact ∗
∗
τact + λ Φfobj ∗
∗
fobj , (22)

5792
 ∗
where the new projectors λ Φτact ∗ : <na → <nc and IV. R ESULTS
λ∗
Φfobj
∗ :< n op
→ < , defined as
n c
From existing literature on snake robots (or structurally
similar hyper-redundant manipulators, tentacle arms, etc.)
λ∗
Φτact
∗ := it is not possible to draw conclusions on how the contact
−1
(Js Ms−1 JsT + GT Iobj G)−1 Js Ms−1 B (23) with the environment (either through friction or rigid-body
contacts as presented in Section II) has a positive or negative
λ∗ −1 −1 effect on the system, or any effect whatsoever. This is a key
Φfobj
∗ := −(Js Ms−1 JsT + GT Iobj G)−1 GT Iobj (24)
difference of snake robots compared to robotic manipulators
are used to separate the effects of both subsystems. that try to avoid obstacles as much as possible. To study this
we can apply the framework proposed in this paper while
B. Movement in the Unconstrained Space changing the number and type of constraints and studying
the resulting constraint forces λ ~ and acceleration of the
To obtain the motion that the system exhibits it is neces- system ~aobj . In general, we propose three different scenarios
sary to project back the constraint forces onto the equations depending on the type of constraints present on the system
of motion (14) (ignoring velocity products). The obtained as follows:
vector of accelerations is • Scenario 1: The snake robot is in contact with an object
h ∗⊥
i but unconstrained in any other way. This allows us to
eT a = eT I −1 (ec Φe∗ )f ∗ (25)
consider only the inertial properties of the system. This
scenario has been more deeply studied and reported in
e∗⊥
where the new projector c Φe∗ : <n → <n defined as [4].
e∗⊥ † • Scenario 2: The snake robot is contacting one object
c Φe∗ := 1 − AT AT (26) and has passive wheels in all other links. The friction
between the passive wheels and ground is bounded by
is a projector from input wrenches e∗T f ∗ to the space
its limit surface.
orthogonal to the constrained space C, but with coordinates
• Scenario 3: The snake robot is contacting one object and
expressed with respect to the original basis e∗ . By solving
has passive wheels in all other links. The passive wheels
for aobj the motion of the object can be obtained as
impose (unbounded and bilateral) non-holonomic con-
straints. Scenario 3 considers ideal passive wheels and

∗  
∗
aobj = aobj Φτact
∗ τact + aobj Φfobj
∗ fobj , (27)
could be considered as the extreme case when µs → ∞.
where the auxiliary mappings aobj Φτact
∗ : <na → <nop and It is then clear that any case of anisotropic friction will
aobj
Φfobj
∗ : < op → < op can be defined as
n n lie somewhere between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. In all
previous scenarios, it will be assumed that the object is very
aobj −1
G G−1 Js Ms−1 B (28) heavy w.r.t to the snake robot (mobj = 100mi )


Φτact
∗ := Iobj c
The norms have to be studied over regions on a specific
−1

T −1  k-th configuration that can be expressed as
aobj
Φfobj
∗ := Iobj 1 − G G−1
c G Iobj (29)
~ 2 : ||λ||
~ 2 = τ ∗T Ψτ ∗ τ ∗ , τ ∗ ∈ τ̄ } (32)


Ψ[k] = {||λ|| act act act act
The (squared) length of the acceleration of the object 2 2 ∗T

∗ ∗
||~aobj ||2 can be obtained in an invariant way by considering Ω[k] = {||~aobj || : ||~aobj || = τact Ωτact ∗ τact , τact ∈ τ̄ }
its metric tensors, similar to the previous section for the (33)
constraint forces where the total expression can be divided where all mappings are restricted to the quadratic region of
into three terms as the input
∗ ∗T
Ms−1 τact

∗
τ̄ := {τact : τact 6 1} (34)
||~aobj ||2 = τact
∗T

∗
Ωτact∗ τact
∗T
 
∗ ∗T
 
∗
which will be, in general, an ellipsoid and not a unitary
+ fobj Ωfobj
∗ fobj + τact ∗ Ωf ∗
τact obj
fobj . (30) sphere as is usually considered (i.e., ||~
τact ||2 6 1 is not the
same as τact τact 6 1) (c.f. Fig. 1(d)-(e)). The sets Ψmax
∗T ∗
We will concentrate on the contributions of the inputs of the
and Ωmax denote the sets of the maximum values of the
snake robot. It can be verified that the auxiliary mapping
constraint forces and acceleration of the object, respectively,
∗ , after some manipulation, can be defined as
Ωτact
for all configurations.
T −1
Ωτact
∗ := B T Ms−1 JsT G−1 −1 −1
c G Iobj GGc Js Ms B (31) A. Case Studies
where the auxiliary term In order to show more specific and qualitative results, we
apply the mappings and study a snake robot with two joints
JˆsT := JsT G−1 −1
c Js Ms
since it allows us to show graphically the magnitude of the
studied norms as a function of the joint torques. The snake
has been introduced for a more compact notation. robot has the parameters described in Table I. The snake

5793
 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 changes very little across the three scenarios.
The set Ψmax can be plotted as a function of the polar
coordinates of the COM of the snake robot. Figure 2(a)
shows two-dimensional projections of this, where all three
τ2 scenarios are shown together. Although Fig. 2(a) shows very
|C OM
| ∠COM intuitive results, it is difficult to gather more quantitative
results. In Fig. 2(b) a simpler two-dimensional polar plot is
τ1 shown where the magnitude of the constraint forces is shown
ŷ ~
λ ŷ ŷ with color. It is clear that the passive wheels have an effect
~ 2 , however, it is not possible (from this plot) to know
on ||λ||
x̂ x̂ x̂
~aobj how much power is used pushing the object and how much
(a) (b) (c) is distributed on the passive wheels.
(d) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
0.06 0.9 The set Ωmax can also be plotted as a function of the
0.5 0.6
polar coordinates of the COM of the snake robot. Figure 2(c)
τ 2 [ N m]

0.04
0.02
0.4
0.00
- 0.02
0.3 0.5 shows two dimensional projections of the set as a function
0.2
- 0.04
- 0.06 0.1
0.1
of the polar coordinates of the COM of the snake robot,
-0
.04 0.00 0.04 and Fig. 2(d) shows the polar plots. It can be seen that in
τ1 [N m] ~ 2 [W/s]
||λ|| all scenarios, configurations where the COM of the snake
(e) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 robot is close to the object (|COM | is small) and it is about
0.007 0.008 0.008 90◦ or −90◦ are optimal configurations that maximize the
0.006
0.005 0.006
0.004
acceleration of the object. Passive wheels have a small effect
0.004
0.003
0.002 0.002 on the magnitude of the acceleration ||~aobj ||2 , however the
0.001
increment is not very big. For completeness sake, we show
||~aobj ||2 [W/s]
the acceleration of the object obtained from a snake robot
with four-joints, as shown in Fig. 2(e).
Fig. 1. Snake robot with 2 joints contacting an object. (a) The friction
between the snake robot and the ground is negligible. (b) The snake
robot has passive wheels (represented by the black rectangles) with a limit V. D ISCUSSION
surface for the friction force. (c) Ideal passive wheels are assumed. (d)
Case Study 1: The first, second, and third column represent scenario 1,
scenario 2, and scenario 3, respectively. The configuration of the robot The main parameters studied in this paper were the
is qs = {0, 0, 0, −135◦ , −135◦ }. Magnitude of the constraint force as configuration of the snake robot (parametrized by its COM)
a function of the input torques. (e) Magnitude of the acceleration of the
object. and the friction force between the snake robot and the
ground. Regarding friction, we show both extremes of the
TABLE I friction force: it is either negligible or it is unbounded. The
PARAMETERS OF THE S IMULATION FOR CASE STUDY 1 unbounded case is the most common assumption that has
been taken with snake robots, similar to the problem of a n-
Symbol Value Unit Description link trailer. The results show that passive wheels (even ideal)
n
na
5
2
Number of DOFs of the system
Number of actuated joints
have a very small effect on the wrench that can be exerted
mi 1 [kg] Mass of linki , i = 1, ..., n` onto the object.
`i 0.15 [m] Length of linki , 1 = 1, ..., n`
Icom,i 0.002 [kg m2 ] Rotational inertia for the i-th link Although most research regarding snake robots has con-
= [τa1 , τa2 ]T [N cm] Input joint torques
τact
µs 0.1 Coefficient of (static) friction used for Scenario 2 centrated on gaited motions, this may not be enough for
more complicated terrains ( [20]) or tasks. We believe that
by understanding the general effects that the configuration
of the robot have and the effect of its interaction with the
robot is contacting an object with its tail (first link) and the environment (e.g., through friction) may lead to valuable
contact occurs at the middle of the link (c.f. Figure 1(a)-(c)). clues when exploring a set of possible solutions.
The angles of the joints are varied in the range [−135◦ , 135◦ ] In this paper we have concentrated on the resulting accel-
every 10◦ (784 configurations tested) and the metrics (22) eration of the object, but ignored the motion of the snake
and (30) are calculated within the quadratic region (34). robot. The mathematical analysis shows that the problem
One example configuration can be seen in Fig. 1(d)-(e), resembles that of robotic manipulation with robotic arms,
where it is assumed that the object has a hundred times the but at the same time there is an overlap with the problem
mass of a link of the robot (i.e., κ = 100). Fig. 1(d) shows of walking robots. Manipulation with snake robots is not
the magnitude of the constraint force ||λ|| ~ 2 for the three a pure manipulation problem; both the interaction with an
proposed scenarios. It can be seen that in scenario 1 the object and the environment have to considered at the same
norm is non-zero only when the unilateral constraint between time. Initial results linking the motion of both the object and
rigid bodies holds true. Fig. 1(e) shows the magnitude of the the robot to the configuration and frictional constraints have
acceleration of the object ||~aobj ||2 , and as can be seen, it been reported in [21].

5794
 Ψmax (very heavy object) 2(e)). The effect of the configuration of the snake robot is
||λ||2 ||λ||2 dominant on the problem and the results are consistent with
1.0 ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆ ◆◆
◆
◆ ◆◆
◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆
◆◆
◆◆◆
◆1.0
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆◆
◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆
◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆

κ = 100
◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆

those presented before [4]. In particular, it is shown that it

◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆◆◆
◆ ◆ ◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆
◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆◆◆ ◆
◆◆
◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆◆
◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
■◆
◆◆■ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ■ ◆ ◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆
◆◆◆ ◆
◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆◆
◆ ◆
◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆
◆◆ ◆ ■
■■
■
■■■◆◆
■■
■◆◆
■
◆
◆◆
■ ■
◆◆■
■◆◆
◆ ◆◆◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆
◆
■
◆ ◆ ■
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ■◆ ◆ ◆ ◆■ ◆
■
◆■◆◆
■ ■ ■ ◆■
■■■ ■■ ■■
■◆
◆◆■■■
◆◆
◆◆■
■
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆◆◆ ◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆■ ■
■■■ ◆ ◆
■■ ◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆◆ ◆◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆
■■ ◆ ■■ ■
■ ■ ■ ◆

0.8 ■■■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■■ ■■■■
■■
■■
■ ■■ ■ ■■■
■
■
■■
■◆
■
■
■
■
■ ■■■
■
■
◆◆
■■
■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆■
■
◆
◆
◆◆
■
◆◆
◆◆
■
■◆◆
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
◆◆
■
■
■
◆◆
■
◆
◆◆
■■
■
■
◆◆
■■
■
■
■
■
◆◆
◆ ◆◆
■
◆◆
■
◆◆
◆◆
■■
■
■
◆◆
■
■■
◆◆
■■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
■
■◆◆
■
■◆◆
■
■
■
■
■
◆
■■ ◆
■■
◆◆■
■■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
■■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
■
■
◆◆
■
◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
■
■
■
■■ ◆
■
■
■■ ■
◆
■■ ◆
◆◆
■◆
■
◆
■■■ ◆
■
■◆
◆
■
■■ ◆

◆
◆
■◆
◆
■
◆
◆■
■
■
■ ◆
◆◆
◆
■
■◆
■■
■■■
■
■■
■■
◆
■ ◆ ◆
■
■
■
◆ ■■
■■◆
■
◆
◆■ ◆ ◆ ◆
■
◆◆ ◆
◆◆◆
◆ ◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆◆◆
0.8
◆◆◆◆
◆
◆
◆◆
◆◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆ ◆
◆◆ ◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆◆
◆

◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆ ◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
◆
◆◆ ◆
◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆
◆◆◆◆◆ ◆ ◆
◆
◆ ◆◆■◆ ■
◆
◆
■
◆ ◆
■◆
■ ■
◆
■■■
◆
■
■
■
■
■
◆ ■◆
◆
■◆
■
■
■
◆
■
■
■◆
■◆
■
■
■ ◆
◆
■
◆
◆
◆
■
■◆
■◆
■◆
◆
◆■◆■
◆
■
■
◆
◆◆
■ ■■
◆■ ■■■
◆
■
■
■
■■
■

◆◆ ■ ◆ ■ ■■■■ ◆ ◆ ■■■■■■
■■◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ■
■ ■
■ ◆◆
◆◆
■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■
■ ■◆◆ ◆◆◆
◆◆ ■■◆
■■◆
■◆ ■
◆◆
■
■■■
■
■ ◆ ◆ ■■
■
■■◆
■■
■
◆ ■◆
■
■◆■◆
■
◆◆ ■ ◆◆
■ ■
◆◆ ◆◆
■
◆◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ■ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆■ ■ ◆
■ ■■■
■ ■
◆◆
■ ■ ■■
◆◆ ■ ■■ ■ ◆◆ ◆ ■■■ ■■
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ ■ ■■ ■ ◆
■■ ■ ■■ ■ ◆◆
■ ■■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ◆◆
■ ◆◆ ◆
■■ ■ ■ ◆
■
■■■ ◆ ◆◆◆
■◆
■
■■ ■ ■ ■
◆■■■■
◆◆
■■ ■ ◆■
■■ ■■■ ■
■■
■ ■
■◆
■
■■■
◆◆ ■ ◆◆
■
■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ◆◆ ◆ ■■■ ■
◆◆ ◆ ◆■
■
◆◆
◆◆ ◆■■■ ◆ ■■■
■ ■ ■◆ ■ ■■■

is beneficial to have the COM of the snake robot as close

■ ■ ■ ◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■

0.6 ●
●●●●●●
●●●
●●
●
●●●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●●
● ●●
●●
■
■
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●●●
●●
■ ■◆◆
■●
●
●●
■
●●
●●
●●
● ●●
■■
●●
●● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
■
●●
●●
■●●
■
■■
◆
◆
■
■
■
●●
●
●●
■
●●
■ ●●
■■
●
●●
■
◆◆
■
●
■
◆◆
◆◆
■■
■
◆◆
■
●●
●●
■
●●
●●
■■
◆
●●
●●
■
●●
■
■◆◆
■◆◆
◆◆
■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
●●
■
◆
●●
■
■
■
◆◆
■
■
◆
■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆
●●
◆◆
●●
◆◆
■●
■
■
■
●
■
◆◆
■
●●■
◆◆
◆◆
●●
■
●●
●●
■
●●
■

■
■
■■
◆
■◆◆
■■ ■
■◆◆
■
◆◆
■
●●
■
●●
■
■
◆◆
●●■
■
■■
◆◆
■■
■■
◆◆
■
■◆◆
■
■
■
■
■■
◆◆
■■
■
◆◆
■
◆◆■
◆◆
■
■
◆◆
■■
■
■
■
■
◆◆
■■
■
◆◆
◆◆
■■
◆◆
■
◆◆
■
■
◆◆
■
■
■
■◆◆
◆◆
■
◆◆
◆◆
■
◆◆ ■
■
■■■
■■
■◆◆
◆◆
■■
■
■
■
■
◆
◆◆
◆◆
■
■
◆◆
◆◆
■
◆
■■
■■
◆◆
◆◆
◆◆ ■■
■
◆◆
◆
◆◆
◆◆
■■
■■
■
■ ■
■■
■
● Scenario 1 ●●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
◆
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
◆
■■
◆
●
●
●
●
●
■
◆
■
◆
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■
◆
●
●
●
●
◆
■
■
◆
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■

●
◆
■
●
●
●
●
◆
■

●
◆
●
■
●
●
●
●
◆
◆
■■
◆■■
■

■ ■
◆
■
●
●◆
■
◆
■
●
◆
■
■
◆
◆
◆
■
■
■
◆
◆■
■
■
■
■
■
■■ ■
■
■
■
◆
■
■
◆
■■
■
◆
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■■
■
◆
◆
■■
■
■■
■
■
◆
■
■■
■
■
◆◆◆
■
■
■
■◆
■
■
■
■
■
■■
◆
0.6
■◆
◆◆◆
◆■◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
■
■
◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆

◆
◆
◆◆
◆
◆
◆
◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
◆
◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆◆
◆ ◆
◆
◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ■

◆ ◆ ◆■
◆
◆

■■■
■
■
■
◆
◆
■■
■
◆
◆

■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
◆■
■■
■■■■
■
■
■
◆
■
◆
■
■
■
■
◆
■

◆
■
■
■
■
■
■
◆
■
■
■
■
■■■◆
■
◆
■
◆
■
◆
■
■
◆
■
■◆
■ ◆
■
■ ■◆
■■◆ ◆
■
◆
■
◆
■
■
■
◆
■
◆
■◆
◆
●
◆
●
■
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■
■
●
●
●
●
●
■
●
●
●
●
◆
◆
■
◆
■
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■
◆
■
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■

●
●
●
●
●
◆
■

●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●●
●●●
●
●●
●

◆◆
◆ ●
●● ●●
◆◆
■ ◆ ●●
●●
■
■ ■
◆◆ ■ ■■
■
●
●●● ■◆ ■■ ■ ■ ◆ ●●●
●

0.4
●●
●●● ●●
●●
●●
●●
● ●●
●●
●●
● ●●
■
●●
●●
●●●
●●
■■■
●●●
■
●●
●●
■
●■
●●
■■
●●
■●■■
■
●●

●
●●
■■■◆◆
■
●●
■
■●
■
■
■
■◆◆
■
●
■
■
◆◆
●
■
■
●●
■
●●
●●
◆◆
●●
◆◆
■■
◆◆
●●
◆◆
■
■
■
●●
●●
●
■■◆◆
■■
■
■
■
■
◆
■
●●
■
■
■
■
■■
■
●●
◆◆
◆◆
■
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
■
◆◆
●
■
■
■
◆◆
■
■■
●●
■
■
◆◆
■
◆◆
■
◆◆
■
●●
■
●
◆◆
■
■
■
■
■
◆◆
■
●●
■
■
■
■
■
■
◆◆
■■
◆◆
◆◆■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■■
■■
■
■ Scenario 2 ●
●●
●
◆
●
●
●
■
●
●
●
●
◆
■
●
●●
●
●
◆
■
●
●●
◆
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
■
◆
●
●
●
●
◆
■
■ ■■
◆
■ ◆
●
●
●◆
■
◆
■
◆
■■
■
■
■
■■◆
◆
■
■
■■
◆
■■
■ ■
■■
■
◆■
■
■
■■
■

■◆
■■
■■

0.4
◆◆■
■
■
■
◆
■
■
■■
■
■◆
■◆
■
■■
■■
■■
■
■
■
◆
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■■
■■
■
■
■ ■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
◆
◆
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■■
■
■◆
■◆
■

■■
■
■
◆■◆
■■
■■■
■
■◆
■■
■
◆
■
■
■◆
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
◆
■■
◆
■
■
■ ●
■■ ◆
◆■◆ ■
◆
■■ ◆
◆
◆
■
●
●
■
◆
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■
●
●
●
●
●
◆
●
●
■
●
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

as possible to the contact point and aligned with the line of

◆◆
● ●
●
● ●●
●●■●●■
■
■●●
■■◆◆
■
■
■●●
●●
■■
■■
●●
■■■■
●●
●●
●■■
■■■■
■■
■
■■
■■■■
■■
■
■■
■
■■
■
■■
■■■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
●●
●
●
◆
●
●●
■ ◆ ■■
■■◆◆ ■
■■■■ ■■
■■
■
■
■■
■■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■■
■
■■
■
■■
■
■
■
■■■ ■ ■
■
■◆
◆■
■■◆
■●
◆
●●
●
■●
●
●●
●● ●●
■ ■ ■■ ■●●
●●
■ ■
■
■■
■■
■ ■
●●
■■
●●
■
●●
■●●■
■ ■
■■ ■■
■
■■
■■
■■■
■■■■ ●
●●
●
●
●
■■■
■■■■
■■
■
■■
■■
■
■
■
■■
■■■
■■■ ■
■
■■
■■
■
■
■ ■
■
■■
■■
■■■
■
■
■■
■■
■
■■
■
■
■■ ■●●
●
●
●
●
■ ◆◆
■ ■
●●●●
●● ■■ ■
■
●●■ ■■ ■
■
●● ■
●● ■ ■ ●
●●
● ■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ■
■ ■■■■● ●●
●

0.2
●●●● ●●
● ● ●●
■●●●■
●●●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
■
●●
●
●●●●
●●
●●
●●
●●●●
●● ●●
●●
●●●
●● ● ●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●
●●
●●
◆ Scenario 3 ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◆
■■
●■
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
■

0.2
■ ■ ■■
■

●
●
●
●
●
●
■■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
■◆●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

∠COM [rad]
●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●
●● ●●●●
●●●●
●●
●● ●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●● ●●●
●●●●●●●●
●● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●● ●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●●●● ●●
●● ●●●● ●●
●●●
●● ●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●
●● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●●●●
●● ●●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●
●●●●●
● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●●
●● ●●
●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●● ●●
●●●●
●●●● ●●
●● ●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●

action of the contact.

● ●
● ●
● ●
●

0.04 0.08 0.12 |COM| [m] -2 -1 0 1 2

(a)
● Scenario 1
π
■ Scenario 2
π
◆ Scenario 3
π
R EFERENCES
2π
7π
12 2
5π
12 π ∠COM [rad] 2π
7π
12 2
5π
12 π 2π
7π
12 2
5π
12 π
3π 3 3 π 3π 3 3 π 3π 3 3 π [1] R. Murphy, “Trial by fire [rescue robots],” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.,
5π
6
0.8
4 4
π
6
5π
6
0.8 4 4
π
6
5π
6
0.8 4 4
π
6 vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 50–61, Sept. 2004.
11 π
12 0.6 π
12
11 π
12 0.6 π
12
11 π
12 0.6 π
12 [2] A. Davids, “Urban search and rescue robots: from tragedy to technol-
π
0.4 |COM| [m]
0 π
0.4 0 π
0.4 0 ogy,” IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 81–83, Mar. 2002.
13 π 23 π 13 π 23 π 13 π 23
12
7π 0.2 12
11 π
12
7π 0.2 12
11 π
12
7π 0.2 12π
11 π [3] P. Liljebäck, K. Pettersen, Ø. Stavdahl, and J. Gravdahl, “A review
on modelling, implementation, and control of snake robots,” Robot.
6 6 6 6 6 6
0.0
5π
4 4π 5π
7π
4 0.0 5π
4 4π 5π
7π
4 0.0 5π
4 4π 5π
7π
4
3 17 π
12
3π
2
19 π
12
3 3 17 π
12
3π
2
19 π
12
3 3 17 π
12
3π
2
19 π
12
3
Auto. Sys., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 29 – 40, 2012. [Online]. Available:
(b) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889011001618
[4] F. Reyes and S. Ma, “Snake robots in contact with the environment:
||~aobj || Ωmax(very heavy object) ||~aobj ||
Influence of the configuration on the applied wrench,” in Proc. IEEE
0.020 0.020
κ = 100 Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Syst. (IROS 2016), Oct. 2016.
0.015
● Scenario 1
0.015 [5] S. Nansai, M. R. Elara, and M. Iwase, “Dynamic hybrid position force
0.010 ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ■ Scenario 2 0.010 control using virtual internal model to realize a cutting task by a
◆ ◆◆
■■◆
■◆ ■■◆
◆ ■ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆
■◆
◆ ◆

snake-like robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Biomedical Robotics and

■■■ ◆
◆ ■ ◆ ■
■◆
■ ■ ◆
●
■
●● ●●●
● ● ◆
■
● ■
◆
■
◆
●
■◆
●●
● ●◆
● ■
●
●◆
■
■
■
◆
●
●
●
●
●◆
■
■
■
●
◆
●
■◆
◆
●◆
■
● ●◆
■
●
●
■
◆
■◆
◆
■
◆
●
◆
■
◆
■
■
■
●◆
●
●
■
●
●
● ●
◆
◆
■
●
■◆
■
■
●
●
◆
■◆
◆
●◆
■
■
●
●◆
◆
■
●
■◆
■
◆
●
■
◆
■
●
■
●●
●◆
◆
■
◆
■
● ◆
■
●
■
●◆
■◆
●
■◆
◆
■
■
●◆
◆ Scenario 3 ◆ ◆
■■ ■ ◆

●● ●
◆■
◆
■
◆
■
●
●●
◆
◆
■
●
■ ■
■ ◆
■
◆
■ ◆
◆
■
● ●
●
●◆◆◆
■
■■
●●
●
■
◆
■
■
◆
●
●
◆
■
●
◆
●
◆
■
■◆
◆
●
●
■■
■
◆◆
■
■ ◆■
■ ◆
◆
◆
◆
■◆
■◆
■
●●◆
■
■
■◆
◆
■◆
◆
●
●
■
◆
■
■
■
●
● ●
■
◆
◆
■
◆■ ■◆
■■◆
◆
■
●●
●
◆■
◆
●● ●●
■
■ ■
● ●●
■◆ ◆ ◆
●
●■ ■ ◆ ●◆
◆
■◆ ◆●
◆ ●
■● ■■ ●● ■ ■
● ◆ ◆■ ◆
●◆ ◆ ■◆
◆ ●
■ ●● ■ ■◆■● ● ◆
◆
■
◆
●■ ◆
■ ◆ ◆
■◆
●
■
■●
■◆
●
◆
●
0.005 ◆
●
◆
● ■ ● ◆ ◆
●● ◆ ■● ●◆ ■ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ■
■
■
● ●◆ ◆◆
●
●
◆
■■■ ◆ ●●
◆ ◆
■
● ◆■■ ◆
0.005
Biomechatronics (BioRob 2016). IEEE, June 2016, pp. 151–156.
◆ ● ●
◆■ ■ ◆
● ■■
◆
■ ● ■ ◆ ■■◆ ◆
● ●
◆
●
■ ■ ●
◆ ◆◆ ■
●
●●◆ ■ ●◆
■◆ ■
●◆ ■◆
●◆■●● ◆
■
●◆■
◆ ◆ ◆◆◆
◆
◆◆
●◆
●■◆
◆◆ ◆
■ ◆ ◆◆■◆
◆
■◆
●
■
■
●
●
●
◆
■
■●■ ■ ◆ ◆
●
●
■■■ ◆●
■◆◆
● ■◆ ◆ ◆
■
◆ ■●
■ ◆
● ■ ◆ ◆
●● ■ ◆ ● ■■ ◆
● ■
◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ◆
■ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ●
◆● ●
●◆ ●●■ ■ ● ◆ ■■◆◆
■
◆ ● ●● ■
■■ ●● ◆ ◆
■ ◆
■ ■ ◆ ◆
◆ ■
■
◆ ◆ ●
■◆
●■ ●◆ ●■◆ ■◆●
◆
●●■■ ■ ◆
■
●◆■ ◆
■■
◆◆◆◆◆ ◆
◆
■
◆ ●■●●
● ◆
● ◆
●
● ■◆●■ ■■● ■
■
■■ ■
■■ ◆ ◆■■■ ●●
●
◆ ◆ ◆ ●● ■ ■◆ ◆
●●
●◆ ■ ■
■
●■
● ■ ■ ●
■◆◆● ● ● ■
● ● ◆ ■■ ◆
●
◆ ■ ● ◆ ◆■
◆ ◆
■ ● ■●
■ ■● ■
■ ● ●
●
●
●
◆
●
■●
◆◆ ■
◆ ■◆ ■■
■ ■
■■
●●
●◆
■ ■
◆●◆◆ ■ ● ● ◆
● ■ ●
●■■ ■
■
●●● ●
●● ● ● ●
● ● ●● ●◆
●
■
●■
■ ■ ■◆■ ■ ■ ◆■
● ●
◆ ■◆ ●
● ◆ ●
◆

[6] C. Holden, Ø. Stavdahl, and J. T. Gravdahl, “Optimal dynamic force

■
● ● ●●
●●
●
◆
■●
●◆
■■
◆
●
■◆
■
●
■■
■■●
◆
■■ ◆
●●
●
■●
■◆
■
●■
●■
●
●● ●●◆■ ●●●
◆ ●◆
●
●◆
●●●
■●●● ■●
■
● ■
●◆●
■
●◆
■●●● ●

0.06 0.10 0.14 -2 -1 0 1 2

|COM| [m] ∠COM [rad] mapping for obstacle-aided locomotion in 2d snake robots,” in Proc.
(c) IEEE Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Syst. (IROS 2014), Sept. 2014,
● Scenario 1 ■ Scenario 2 ◆ Scenario 3
2π
7π
12
π
2
5π
12 π 2π
7π
12
π
2
5π
12 π 2π
7π
12
π
2
5π
12 π
pp. 321–328.
[7] Z. Y. Bayraktaroglu and P. Blazevic, “Understanding snakelike lo-
3π 3 3 π 3π 3 3 π 3π 3 3 π

5π 0.008
4 4
π 0.008
5π
4 4
π 0.008
5π
4 4
π

11 π
12
6
0.006
6
π
12
11 π
0.006
12
6 6
π
12
0.006
11 π
12
6 6
π
12
comotion through a novel push-point approach,” Journal of dynamic
π
0.004 0 π
0.004 0 π
0.004 0 systems, measurement, and control, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 146–152, 2005.
[8] W. Blajer, “A geometrical interpretation and uniform matrix
13 π 23 π 13 π 23 π 13 π 23
π
12 12 12 12 12 12
7π 0.002 11 π 0.002
7π 11 π 0.002
7π 11 π

formulation of multibody system dynamics,” ZAMM - Journal of

6 6 6 6 6 6
0.000
5π
4 4π 5π
7π
4
5π
0.000
4 4π 5π
7π
4
0.000
5π
4 4π 5π
7π
4
17 π 19 π 17 π 19 π 17 π 19 π
3
12
3π
2 12
3 3
12
3π
2 12
3 3
12
3π
2 12
3
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift fr Angewandte
(d) Mathematik und Mechanik, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 247–259, 2001.
[Online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-
Ωmax (very heavy object)
4001(200104)81:4¡247::AID-ZAMM247¿3.0.CO;2-D/abstract
Scenario 1 ■ Scenario 2 ◆ Scenario 3
7π
π
2
5π 7π
π
2
5π 7π
π
2
5π
[9] R. Featherstone, Rigid body dynamics algorithms. USA: Springer
US, 2014.
2π 12 12 π 2π 12 12 π 2π 12 12 π
3 3 3 3 3 3
3π π 3π π 3π π

0.010 4 4
0.010 4 4
0.010 4 4

0.008
5π
6
π
6

0.008
5π
6
π
6

0.008
5π
6
π
6
[10] P. Grinfeld, Introduction to tensor analysis and the calculus of moving
surfaces. Springer, 2013.
11 π π 11 π π 11 π π
12 12 12 12 12 12

0.006
π 0
0.006
π 0
0.006
π 0

0.004
13 π
12
23
12
0.004
13 π
12
23 π
12
0.00413 π
12
23 π
12
[11] R. Featherstone, Rigid Body Dynamics Algorithms. USA: Springer
0.002 7π
6
11 π
6
0.002 7π
6
11 π
6
0.002 7π
6
11 π
6 US. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4899-
0.000 π 7π
0.000 0.000
7560-7
5π 5π 7π 5π 7π
4 4 4 4 4 4
4π 5π 4π 5π 4π 5π
3 17 π 19 π 3 3 17 π 19 π 3 3 17 π 19 π 3
3π 3π 3π

[12] J. Gray, “The mechanism of locomotion in snakes,” J. Exp. Biol.,

12 12 12 12 12 12
2 2 2

(e) vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 101–120, 1946.

[13] P. Liljebäck, K. Y. Pettersen, Ø. Stavdahl, and J. T. Gravdahl, Snake
Fig. 2. Case Study 1: Set of the maximum values of the norm of robots: modelling, mechatronics, and control. Springer Science &
the constraint forces Ψmax and object acceleration Ωmax as a function Business Media, 2012.
of {|COM |, ∠COM }. (a) Two-dimensional projection of Ψmax as a [14] B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Eds., Springer Handbook of Robotics.
function of the polar coordinates of the COM of the snake robot. (b) Polar New York, USA: Springer-Verlag Inc., 2008.
plots showing all configurations with scenario 1, 2, and 3 separated. (c) Two- [15] F. Matsuno and K. Mogi, “Redundancy controllable system and control
dimensional projection of Ωmax as a function of the polar coordinates of of snake robots based on kinematic model,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
the COM of the snake robot. (d) Polar plots showing all configurations with on Decision and Control (CDC 2000), vol. 5. IEEE, 2000, pp. 4791–
scenario 1, 2, and 3 separated. (e) Polar plots of Ωmax for a snake robot 4796.
with four joints. [16] F. Matsuno and H. Sato, “Trajectory tracking control of snake robots
based on dynamic model,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and
Automation (ICRA 2005), April 2005, pp. 3029–3034.
[17] R. M. Murray, S. S. Sastry, and Z. Li, A Mathematical Introduction
VI. C ONCLUSION to Robotic Manipulation, 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press,
Inc., 1994.
In this paper a modeling and analysis framework for snake [18] J. T. Y. Wen and L. S. Wilfinger, “Kinematic manipulability of general
constrained rigid multibody systems,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.,
robots in contact with external bodies, either to be manip- vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 558–567, 1999.
ulated or part of the environment, has been presented. The [19] B. Bayle, J. Y. Fourquet, and M. Renaud, “Manipulability analysis
long-term objective is to use snake robots in more complex for mobile manipulators,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and
Automation (ICRA 2001), vol. 2, 2001, pp. 1251–1256 vol.2.
and unstructured situations than undulatory locomotion. [20] R. L. Hatton, R. A. Knepper, H. Choset, D. Rollinson, C. Gong,
The results presented show that the friction between the and E. Galceran, “Snakes on a plan: Toward combining planning and
snake robot and ground though passive wheels have a very control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation (ICRA
2013), May 2013, pp. 5174–5181.
small effect on the wrench that can be exerted onto an object. [21] F. Reyes and S. Ma, “Studying slippage on pushing applications
The analysis has been extensively applied to a snake robot with snake robots,” in In: Proc. Int. Conf. Real-time Computing and
with two-joints (c.f. Fig. 2(a)-(d)). and four-joints (c.f. Fig. Robotics (RCAR 2017), July 2017.

5795